postAnonymousNote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'anonymous' and 'temporary keypair', which hints at privacy and ephemeral authentication, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether the note is publicly visible, if it can be deleted, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Post an anonymous note') and adds necessary context ('to the Nostr network using a temporary keypair'). Every word earns its place with no waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with anonymity aspects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error cases, or what the tool returns, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.

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 schema already documents all parameters (content, relays, tags) with descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining tag formats or relay behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Post an anonymous note') and the target resource ('to the Nostr network'), specifying the method ('using a temporary keypair'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'postNote' and 'publishNote' by emphasizing anonymity and temporary keypair usage.

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 usage for anonymous posting, suggesting when to use it (for anonymity) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'postNote' for non-anonymous posting. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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