write_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is transparent about being a mutating operation by saying 'Create or overwrite,' but it does not disclose that overwrite defaults to true, whether the operation is destructive to existing content, or what side effects may occur. The schema covers the overwrite parameter, but the description itself adds only partial behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Create or overwrite') and includes the two most important content aspects, frontmatter and body, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it states the core purpose and the content structure. It does not describe the return value or the default overwrite behavior, but the schema documents the overwrite parameter, and the absence of an output schema makes return-value documentation less critical for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds some context by mentioning 'structured YAML frontmatter and body,' which maps to the frontmatter and body properties, but it does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create or overwrite') and resource ('note in the Obsidian vault'), and it clarifies that both frontmatter and body are handled. It is clear enough to distinguish the tool from read_note and patch_note, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

The intended use case is implied by 'Create or overwrite a note,' so an agent can infer when to choose it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer patch_note for a non-destructive update or when overwrite should be avoided, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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