Update note.com draft bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates mutation ('Updates') and optional eyecatch upload, but does not mention authentication requirements, whether existing data is overwritten, effects of omitting optional fields, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 states the primary action, optional behavior, and output. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex sibling context, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output structure, authentication needs, or how this bundle differs from using note_update_draft and note_upload_eyecatch separately. An agent would lack critical information for correct invocation.

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 13% (only bodyHtml is documented), so the description should compensate. It adds meaning for noteKey and eyecatch, but leaves title, verify, hashtags, responseFormat, eyecatchImageUrl, and eyecatchImagePath unexplained. The compact ids/URLs hint relates to responseFormat but does not detail it.

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 updates a draft by noteKey, optionally uploads an eyecatch, and returns compact ids/URLs. This specific verb+resource combination is understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like note_update_draft or note_upload_eyecatch.

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 usage through 'optionally uploads an eyecatch' and 'returns compact ids/URLs for AI agents', suggesting when you might want both operations in one call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over note_update_draft or note_upload_eyecatch, nor does it provide exclusions.

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