write_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool overwrites existing notes and that contents persist across compaction and conversations, but it omits failure modes, permissions, folder creation behavior, and details of what exactly gets overwritten.

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 adds two short, useful clauses. There is no wasted text, and the key behavior is easy to scan.

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 is simple, and an output schema exists, but the description is incomplete given zero annotations and zero schema description coverage. It does not explain the folder parameter, overwrite details, or how title and content interact with existing notes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It mentions markdown content and [[wiki links]], but it does not explain title, folder, or content semantics, leaving folder behavior and required title/content usage undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Write (or overwrite) a markdown note in your vault.' It also clarifies the overwrite behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling append_note or other note-related tools.

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 phrase 'This is your permanent memory — it survives compaction and new conversations' implies when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to use write_note versus append_note, read_note, or search_notes. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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