Propose Homebase Note

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

Annotations indicate not read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable context that this is draft-only and performs no Homebase repo writes, clarifying the intended behavior beyond the raw annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two short sentences are packed with essential information: what it creates, for whom, and that it's draft-only. No fluff or redundant wording.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, scope, and behavior, though it could explicitly state the return format (though response_format param implies it).

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 both parameters (staged_chat_id, response_format) are already documented. The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a staged Homebase markdown draft and suggested canonical path for one staged chat. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('staged Homebase markdown draft'), and the context 'one staged chat' distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_notion_page or stage_chat.

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 implies when to use the tool: for a staged chat and when only a draft is needed, with 'Draft-only; no Homebase repo writes' clarifying scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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