write_noteCreate a new markdown note with title, content, tags, and optional folder; fails if the note path already exists—use edit_note to modify existing notes.
Create a new markdown note. Fails if the path already exists — use edit_note to modify existing notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | Yes | Note title | |
| folder | No | Optional vault-relative folder, e.g. 'projects' | |
| content | Yes | Markdown body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavior: the tool fails rather than overwrites when the path already exists. It says nothing about required permissions, what the created note returns, or how tags are persisted, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Two short sentences, each doing distinct work: the first states the action, the second states the failure mode plus the redirect. Nothing is redundant and the key constraint follows immediately after the action.
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?
For a simple four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the failure case but omits what a successful call produces and how tags/folder interact with the created path. It is minimally sufficient to call correctly but not fully self-contained.
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 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally (title, content, folder), and the description adds little beyond restating that the body is markdown. The 'tags' parameter has no description in either place, so the description doesn't compensate for the remaining gap.
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 ('Create a new markdown note') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling edit_note by noting that creation fails on an existing path. An agent can separate write_note from edit_note or append_daily without opening a schema.
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?
It states a concrete condition ('Fails if the path already exists') and names the correct alternative ('use edit_note to modify existing notes'), which is explicit routing guidance. It stops short of covering the other siblings, such as when to prefer append_daily or remember, so it isn't fully exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.