note_save

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

The description discloses the key state-dependent behavior that passing an id updates an existing note while omitting it creates a new one. The annotations already mark readOnly=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that without contradicting it.

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?

A single sentence carries the core operation, the create/update distinction, and the supported content categories with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 schema covers required title/content, optional tags, note_type, and entity linking, while the description covers the core save behavior and the id-based update condition. The definition is sufficient for a straightforward note-save tool even though it does not describe the return value.

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 71%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description reinforces the id semantics and expands the note_type enum into practical categories like decisions, meetings, blockers, and releases, but it adds nothing about tags or related_entity fields.

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 opens with the exact operation, 'Create or update a note', and lists the content categories it supports. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read, search, list, and delete note tools without needing to open their schemas.

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 id-based behavior is explicit: 'With id, updates; without, creates,' which tells the agent exactly how to choose the create versus update path. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the mutating verb and content scoping make its role as the write tool for notes evident.

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