save_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behaviors. It only states the core action and does not mention authentication requirements, side effects such as overwriting existing drafts, or failure behaviors. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly convey the purpose without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining return behavior, prerequisites, and edge cases. It provides none, leaving the agent without information on what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, draft ID) or what is required for it to work (e.g., authentication). This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions reading title, body, and tags from Markdown, which aligns with the markdown_path parameter definition but does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. Other parameters (timeout, state_path, etc.) are left to 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 clearly states the tool's function: saving a draft to note.com by reading content from a Markdown file. It specifies the resource (note.com), the action (save draft), and the input source (Markdown), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'publish_note' that likely publishes rather than saves drafts.

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 when a draft needs to be saved without publishing, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling 'publish_note' or any exclusions. No alternative tools or conditions are referenced, so guidance is only implicit.

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