Prepare note.com draft bundle

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

The description discloses the main actions (create draft, optionally upload eyecatch) and the return type (compact ids/URLs), which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or what happens to intermediate resources if the eyecatch upload fails.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. It is concise with no filler, and every phrase contributes meaning—creating, optional upload, and the output format.

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?

The tool is a compound operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description gives only a high-level overview. It fails to specify what the returned 'ids/URLs' refer to, how responseFormat affects them, or the likely prerequisite of converting Markdown to HTML (given the sibling note_markdown_to_note_html). The overall workflow is under-explained.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides only a vague hint that eyecatch is optional and that a compact id/URL-based response is returned, but it does not explain the roles of title, bodyHtml (already in schema), hashtags, verify, or responseFormat variants. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') with a clear resource ('a draft'), and adds distinct outcomes ('optionally uploads an eyecatch' and 'returns compact ids/URLs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like note_create_draft and note_upload_eyecatch by bundling these actions, and mentions the target audience (AI agents).

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 the tool is for creating a draft with optional eyecatch upload and compact output, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternative tools such as note_create_draft or note_upload_eyecatch, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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