create_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behaviors: automatic parent directory creation, fails-on-existing behavior, and the CAS guard. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects beyond that, no auth/permission requirements, and no return value details. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the disclosure is decent but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with zero waste. Each sentence covers a distinct aspect: what it does, auto-creation behavior, and failure/overwrite semantics. Front-loaded with the core purpose first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has moderate complexity (5 params, nested frontmatter object, CAS semantics). The description covers the create semantics, overwrite behavior, hash guard, and parent dir auto-creation. It doesn't describe return values, but there's no output schema, so a brief note on what it returns would help. Still, given the schema is fully descriptive and the safety semantics are well-covered, this is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying the overwrite+CAS interaction (prevHash guards the overwrite) and highlighting parent directory auto-creation, which complements the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (create), the resource (note), and the location (vault-relative path). It distinguishes this from siblings like patch_note, append_note, and move_note by emphasizing creation semantics including the overwrite behavior, which sets it apart from pure create operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly covers when creation succeeds/fails ('Fails if the note already exists unless overwrite is true') and the prevHash guard for safe overwrites. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives vs siblings, but the create-vs-patch/append/delete distinction is clear enough to guide tool selection in most cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.