Upsert Note Type

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

The description discloses 'Dry-run by default' and 'additive-safe constraints,' which are non-obvious behavioral details beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, but the dry-run behavior is a valuable addition.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the dry-run behavior. 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?

For a complex upsert tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what constitutes a note type, the role of fields/templates, or what the tool returns. It would benefit from more context.

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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool's behavior for fields, templates, or dryRun is not clarified.

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 updates a note type, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_note (which adds notes) and list_note_types (which reads).

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 implies the tool is for creating/updating note types but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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