send_note_to_self

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses cross-device sync and markdown rendering behavior, which is meaningful context. It does not detail return values or limitations, but for a self-messaging operation the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core action and compact for a 4-parameter tool. There is minor redundancy between 'synced across all your linked Signal devices' and 'sync to your phone,' but each sentence otherwise 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?

For a create-and-send tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, sync behavior, message formatting, and optional attachments/quoting. It references the prior send_note_to_self result for quote_timestamp, giving enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: markdown usage guidance, attachment purpose, and quote_author/quote_timestamp semantics for threading follow-ups. This helps an agent use the parameters more effectively than the field descriptions alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Send a note to yourself via Signal's 'Note to Self' / saved messages feature') and explicitly distinguishes it from normal messaging siblings by targeting the user's own saved messages. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives concrete use cases ('saving reminders, bookmarks, or drafts') and advises combining attachments and quotes into one call 'instead of separate calls.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus send_message, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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