note に下書きを作成

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: no publishing occurs, local images are auto-uploaded and embedded, and a dry-run mode previews what would be sent. It stops short of stating auth requirements or the non-idempotent effect of re-running with the same Markdown.

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?

Four compact sentences: conversion/save first, then the no-publish constraint, then image handling, then the dry-run recommendation. Nothing is wasted; it could only be tighter by folding the image note into the first sentence.

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 6-parameter, zero-required mutation-adjacent tool with no output schema, the description covers conversion, storage target, side effects (image upload), and safety (no publish, dry-run preview). Only authentication/credential expectations and the fact that repeated runs create duplicates (idempotentHint=false) are unaddressed.

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 all six parameters (including dry_run, markdown/markdown_path exclusivity, base_dir, eyecatch_path) are already documented in the schema. The description only re-mentions dry_run and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Markdown を note 用の HTML に変換し…新しい下書きとして保存する') with the medium and destination. The emphasis on a NEW draft distinguishes it from the sibling update_draft without needing to open either 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?

It recommends the dry_run-first workflow and clarifies that publishing is out of scope, which is useful guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer create_draft over update_draft/list_drafts or what prerequisites (e.g. authentication) apply, so routing remains partly inferential.

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