substack_post_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Post' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this creates a draft or publishes immediately, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what happens on success/failure. The analogy to a tweet is helpful but insufficient 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 extremely concise (6 words) with zero waste. Every word earns its place: 'Post' establishes the action, 'a short note' defines the resource, and '(like a tweet)' provides helpful context through analogy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like publication status, permissions, error conditions, or return values. The analogy to a tweet provides some context but leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 fully documents both parameters (text and link_url). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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') and the resource ('a short note'), with the parenthetical 'like a tweet' providing helpful analogy for understanding the format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., substack_create_draft or substack_publish), which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for content creation and publishing (substack_create_draft, substack_publish, substack_append_to_draft), there's no indication of whether this is for immediate publication, draft creation, or how it differs from other posting methods.

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