publish_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool publishes automatically, but does not disclose authentication requirements, irreversibility, external side effects, potential failures, or rate limits. The state_path parameter appears only in the schema, not in the description.

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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant filler. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior.

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 the tool's complexity (9 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers core usage and paid-article settings but leaves gaps around authentication prerequisites, return values, error behavior, and relationship to save_draft. The schema is rich, which mitigates some missing context, but the description is not fully complete for an agent.

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%, providing baseline value. The description adds extra semantic detail about price handling (front matter price or <!-- paid --> marker) and clarifies that markdown_path contains title, body, tags, and price settings, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool publishes an article to note.com using a Markdown file, specifying the verb and resource. The distinct action 'publish' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling 'save_draft', but the description does not explicitly reference the sibling or contrast the two.

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 indicates how to use the tool (markdown_path, front matter price, paid line) and implies it is for publishing rather than saving a draft. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over save_draft or any exclusions/alternatives.

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