create_note_with_link

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 it indicates a creation action, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether the note is published immediately or saved as draft, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted language.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets returned (e.g., note ID, success status), error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether the link is validated. The combination of mutation functionality with minimal disclosure creates significant gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('text' and 'link') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new Substack note') and specifies the resource ('with a link attachment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_note' by explicitly mentioning the link attachment feature. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'create_post' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'create_note' or 'create_post'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools that might also create content.

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