Create note.com draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'unofficial internal API' nature, default LLM-friendly summary return, and the responseFormat switch. It does not mention failure modes or auth requirements, but the provided context is valuable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical caveat (Markdown conversion) and output behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior: it lists the returned fields (id/noteId/key/noteKey/editUrl/publicUrl/nextActions), explains the default vs raw response, and gives practical guidance on content format. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is only 25%, but the description compensates by explaining that body must be note-compatible HTML (not Markdown) and by clarifying responseFormat's 'summary' default. Hashtags and title are less deeply explained, but they are straightforward and partially implied by the description.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a note.com draft with title/body/hashtags'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like note_publish_draft and note_update_draft by emphasizing draft creation via an 'unofficial internal API'.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: converts Markdown to HTML before calling, explains the default response format, and mentions the responseFormat option for raw API payload. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like note_prepare_draft, leaving some ambiguity.

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