Create an encrypted note

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses critical behavioral details: encryption happens locally with a new key, the server only stores ciphertext, titles and folder names are unencrypted, a Pro plan is required, and the returned #key= fragment is the only way to open the note. That last point is a non-obvious, high-impact consequence the agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then layers in the encryption model, return value, metadata exposure, and plan requirement. Every clause carries operational meaning, and the single dense sentence remains readable.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, it covers the essential gaps: where encryption occurs, what the server stores, what the return value contains, what metadata is exposed in plaintext, and the Pro prerequisite. No critical caller decision is left uninformed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents title, folder, and markdown thoroughly, including length limits and folder naming rules. The description repeats that titles and folder names are unencrypted and adds that markdown is encrypted before sending, but these details mostly duplicate or lightly extend the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource — creates an end-to-end encrypted static.md note owned by the user — and immediately explains the distinguishing mechanism (local encryption, server stores only ciphertext). It is easily separable from the read_encrypted_note and update_encrypted_note siblings.

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?

It gives clear context for when this applies: creating a new encrypted note, optionally inside a folder, and requires a Pro account. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or route the agent to update_encrypted_note for existing notes, but the creation context is unambiguous.

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