write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the three modes (create, replace, append) and the auto_index behavior, which adds context. However, it does not warn about data loss in 'replace' mode, mention file permissions, or describe side effects such as creating intermediate directories, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a compact parameter list, and a minimal return description. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 moderate complexity of the tool, the description covers the parameters and basic return behavior, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks broader context, such as when to choose this over alternatives or edge-case behavior (e.g., creating a note that already exists, handling invalid paths), leaving the agent with an adequate but incomplete picture.

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 input schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: path, content, mode with its three possible values, and auto_index with its default. It even clarifies that path is relative to the vault, adding useful semantic detail.

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 clearly states the tool creates or modifies a note ('Cree ou modifie une note'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read, delete, or move. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential update-like tools or explain why one would use this over alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains how the tool works (modes, auto_index) but does not indicate that it should be used for creating, replacing, or appending note content, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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