note_create_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and delivers thoroughly: it details the draft-only behavior, the one-line-per-paragraph body format, supported Markdown syntax, and the experimental tag feature with its failure caveat. This is exemplary transparency.

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 compact two-sentence block that front-loads the core action and includes only useful behavioral details. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 3-parameter create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: purpose, non-publication, body formatting, and tag uncertainty. The only notable omission is any mention of the return value or subsequent handling of the created draft, but this is minor for 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%, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: exact Markdown examples and the paragraph-per-line rule for body, plus the caveat that tags may fail. This elevates the value beyond the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('create a new draft article on note.com') and clarifies it is saved as a non-published draft. This immediately distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like note_publish_draft and note_update_draft.

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 clearly signals this tool is for new drafts and explicitly states it does not publish ('公開はされない'), which contextually routes away from publish/update siblings. However, it does not name the sibling alternatives or state exactly when to use them, so explicit when-not guidance is missing.

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