rednote_create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers key traits: the action is queued/asynchronous rather than immediate, it is gated on human approval, it deliberately does not publish, and it returns a queue id. Remaining gaps (rate limits, what happens on rejection, whether the queue id is consumed by rednote_queue_status) are narrower but real.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (draft, not posted) are front-loaded before the return-value note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return value ("a queue id"). It covers the action, the approval gate, the non-publishing guarantee and the return, which is most of what an agent needs; only the downstream relationship to rednote_queue_status and failure behavior are unstated.

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 80%, with body, images, topics and aiGenerated all documented in the schema itself, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level information (nothing about title length, image ordering, or the aiGenerated flag), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Queue a photo note to be saved as a draft") plus an explicit negative scope statement ("Does NOT post") that separates it from the sibling rednote_create_post / rednote_create_video_post. The agent can pick this tool from the name alone without opening the schema.

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?

"after human approval" states the precondition for calling, and "Does NOT post" implicitly excludes it from the direct-publish path. It stops short of naming the alternative (rednote_create_post) or explaining what to do when approval is denied, so it is clear context rather than explicit when/when-not routing.

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