draft_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that drafting does not post and that a draft_id is returned, adding useful transparency. However, it does not disclose side effects such as draft persistence, expiration, or permission requirements.

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 two focused sentences: the first states purpose, the second provides critical behavioral instruction. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, the non-posting behavior, and the return of a draft_id, which is essential given the absence of an output schema. It is nearly complete for a simple drafting tool, though it lacks any mention of error conditions or distinction from draft_reply, preventing a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters described (ticket_id, body as HTML, private defaulting to true). The description's mention of 'private or public' reinforces the private parameter but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states 'Draft a private or public note on a ticket for review' with a clear verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sending via 'Does NOT post — call send_note with the returned draft_id to post.' This clearly separates it from sibling send_note and other drafting tools.

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 direct workflow guidance by instructing to call send_note with the returned draft_id to post, implying when to use each. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling draft_reply or provide exclusions for when not to use this tool beyond the note-vs-reply distinction.

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