is more an issue

rts

Structure your notes like this:

1. Core idea (described in broad, generic terms)
   a. specific implementation 1
   b. specific implementation 2
   c. possible specific implementation 3
  ...

Whether it turns out that the core idea is novel and non-obvious, one of the specific implementations is, or everything is, a well-written application will serve as the basis for one or more patents. Structuring your notes as above will help whoever drafts the application understand your thought process.

JimIvey

There are two parts to a patent reflecting the negotiated exchange a patent represents. 

The written description of your technology represents your contribution to the whole of publicly available technical knowledge.

The claims represent your rights to prevent others from exploiting your contribution given to you as your inducement for the written description.  The claims define your contribution that you can prevent others from exploiting for that limited period of time.

Note 1:  Your written description does not define your contribution and specificity generally does not narrow your property right.

Note 2: If you skimp on the written description, you lose your inducement.  In other words, saying too little in your written description can jeopardize your property right.

The time and place to worry about broad coverage of your patent is when thinking of the claims.

Now, to be fair, that's an over-simplification.  The Spec (as we tend to call the written description) has many pitfalls in which you can shoot yourself in the foot.  But excessive detail is not one of them.

Regards.