create_note

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: duplicate detection via source/source_id and the return value (note_id or duplicate status). Without annotations, this adds necessary context, though it omits details about error handling or side effects when a duplicate is detected.

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 just two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information about parameters and return value.

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?

Given the six optional parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides a fair overview. However, it lacks explicit indication of required fields (notebook_id is implied but not enforced) and does not cover error scenarios or behavior when required parameters are missing. More detail on return value structure would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of notebook_id, name, content, date_on (ISO format), and source/source_id for duplicate detection. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, although it does not elaborate on constraints (e.g., whether notebook_id is actually required).

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 explicitly states 'Create a note in LunaTask' and lists the parameters it accepts, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_journal_entry or create_task. The verb 'Create' and resource 'note' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as update_note or delete_note. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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