create_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool refuses to modify existing files, requires specific frontmatter fields, and is safe to use for creation. It does not mention auth or side effects, but for a creation tool, the main behavioral traits are sufficiently covered.

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 only two sentences, both of which add critical information. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and safety, and the second adds the frontmatter requirement and modification refusal. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, 3 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains creation constraints and the non-overwrite behavior. It could mention what the tool returns, but the absence of output schema reduces that expectation.

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 100%, but the description adds valuable context beyond schema: it specifies that frontmatter must contain 'type/status/related', which is a constraint not present in the schema definition. This helps the agent prepare correct input.

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 verb 'Create', the resource 'markdown note', and includes the safety constraint 'refuses to modify existing files'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'append_to_note' or 'apply_note_update' which handle modifications.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to create a new note, and it specifies that the tool will error if the file exists. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the sibling differentiation is implied by the name and behavior.

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