create_note

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

Beyond the destructiveHint:true annotation, the description discloses three concrete behaviors: automatic parent-directory creation, the fail-on-existing-note rule, and the prevHash compare-and-swap guard that can gate the overwrite. These are non-obvious side effects and failure modes the annotations alone do not convey. The description is consistent with readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:true.

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, each earning its place: the core action first, then the optional parameters, then the critical existence-failure and CAS-guard behavior. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

For a 5-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description covers creation, optional fields, directory auto-creation, the existence failure mode, and the overwrite/CAS guard. The one notable gap is the return contract on success — the CAS workflow implied by prevHash would benefit from knowing whether the note's contentHash is returned — but the invocation semantics are fully specified.

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 every parameter (path, content, prevHash, overwrite, frontmatter) is already documented in the input schema. The description's only added semantic is the coupling between prevHash and overwrite ('prevHash may guard the overwrite'), a small increment over the schema's per-parameter text.

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 opening sentence 'Create a new note at a vault-relative path' names a specific verb, resource, and scope qualifier. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling mutators like append_note, patch_note, replace_in_note, and move_note, which all act on existing notes, and from delete_note.

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 fail-if-exists clause ('Fails if the note already exists unless overwrite is true') gives the agent a clear condition for choosing the overwrite path. However, it does not explicitly route to alternatives — e.g., checking existence with list_notes first or selecting patch_note/append_note for modifying an existing note — so cross-tool selection is left implied.

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