Publish a Note with a link card

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

The description adds that the note is 'Live and public immediately' and that the tool 'refuses to run without confirm: true,' both behavioral traits beyond what readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true already convey. The confirm-refusal partly duplicates the schema's confirm parameter, but the immediacy-of-publication context is genuinely new. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences and roughly 37 words with zero filler: purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and the critical guardrail in sentence two. Every clause 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 publish action there is no output schema, and the description never states what the call returns (e.g., the published note's URL or ID), so an agent cannot know what to report back to the user. All invocation-critical facts (params, confirm guardrail, destructive safety profile) are present, but the missing return contract leaves a real completeness gap.

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 documents all four parameters, including the confirm guardrail and the publication matching behavior. The description only echoes the confirm:true requirement and adds no new parameter semantics, 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 the specific verb 'Publish,' the resource (a Note), and the distinguishing trait: the attached link 'renders as a preview card rather than a bare URL.' This functionally separates it from the sibling publish_note even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 this tool (when a note must go out with a link card) but never names the alternative for linkless notes (publish_note) or the scheduling path (schedule_note). No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are given, so selection is left to inference.

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