note_publish_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action is irreversible and publicly exposes the article, states that it is experimental and unverified on note.com's API, and explains that execution requires confirm:true. This is strong transparency for a destructive operation.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: the operation, the irreversible/public consequence, the experimental status, and the required confirmation flag. Warnings are front-loaded, making the risk profile immediately visible.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, why it is risky, that it is not guaranteed to work, and what condition must be met before it will execute.

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 input schema already covers both parameters, including a description for id and the confirm parameter's role. The description restates the confirmation condition but does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline for full 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 the exact operation ('下書き記事を公開する') and clarifies the real-world effect ('記事が誰でも閲覧可能な状態になる'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling draft-management tools, which cover create, update, and get, not publishing.

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 when to use the tool: when you intend to publish a draft and accept its public/irreversible consequences. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like note_update_draft or note_get_draft, nor does it state when not to use it.

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