Create Note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating tool. The description adds no further context about when destruction occurs (e.g., with overwrite=true) or any other behavioral traits like default path or open behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't enrich the safety profile beyond what annotations already provide.

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 a single, grammatically simple sentence that front-loads the action and key options. It's not bloated, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Given the complexity of the tool, it could be slightly longer without becoming verbose.

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 has 7 parameters, nested properties, and an output schema, yet the description only explains the creation source and properties. It fails to mention path, overwrite, open behavior, or what happens if no content/template is provided. The destructiveHint annotation warns about risk, but the description doesn't define when the destruction happens. This leaves a significant knowledge gap for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions content, template, and properties, which are core parameters, but completely omits name, open, path, and overwrite. It doesn't clarify that content and template are alternatives, nor does it explain the critical 'overwrite' parameter that aligns with the destructiveHint. The added meaning is too sparse for a 7-parameter tool.

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 has a specific verb+resource ('Create a note') and distinctly scopes the action: 'from content or an Obsidian template and optionally set properties.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_note and read_note, which are about modifying or reading existing notes. No ambiguity.

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 verb 'Create' implies this tool is used for new note creation, and the sibling list makes it obvious when to use it compared to update_note or organize_note. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative mentions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer usage from the tool name and description.

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