save_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool reads a Markdown file and saves a draft, but it does not disclose that it likely requires authentication (evident from the state_path parameter), whether it is a mutating action that could overwrite existing drafts, or any side effects. The description lacks important behavioral context for a tool that writes to an external service.

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 clearly states the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameter definitions, the description does not provide enough operational context for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively, such as prerequisites (e.g., an existing authentication state file).

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 all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds marginal value by explaining that the Markdown file contains the title, body, and tags, but the schema already mentions 'title, body, tags' for markdown_path. It adds no extra meaning for other parameters like timeout, state_path, screenshot_dir, or thumbnail_path, so it does not significantly surpass the schema baseline.

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 action ('saves a draft to note.com') and the resource ('from a Markdown file'). It specifies the full workflow of reading title, body, and tags. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'publish_note' by the action of saving a draft versus publishing.

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 saving drafts, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the alternative (e.g., 'Use publish_note to publish instead'). Since there are no exclusions or explicit alternative guidance, it falls short of a 5 but still offers clear usage context.

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