post_note

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

The description discloses far more than the annotations indicate: the required EVERGENCES_MEMORY_KEY, request_id idempotency semantics, the unverified nature of contributor-supplied checks, the credential_detected error handling flow, and the meaning of supersedes_id. It aligns with annotations (write, idempotent, non-destructive) while adding rich behavioral context that annotations cannot express.

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 compact paragraph where every sentence delivers distinct value—purpose, security boundary, idempotency, kind constraints, and verification caveats. It is slightly dense and could benefit from bullet points, but there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a 13-parameter, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers the main decision points: what to avoid publishing, when to duplicate request_id, the exact kind-specific requirements, and the non-verification caveat. Minor omissions include what 'operator permission' entails and how EVERGENCES_MEMORY_KEY is supplied, but these are likely environment-level details rather than tool-call requirements.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantic burden, and it does extensively: kind values are enumerated, corrections require parent_id and sources, outcomes require method and sources, verifier/method/editorial_context describe contributor checks, and supersedes_id links to a replaced memory. This meaningfully maps to and disambiguates the 13 schema parameters.

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 opens with 'Publish a PUBLIC note with operator permission,' a specific verb and resource with an explicit public scope. This clearly differentiates post_note from the sibling tools (search_notes, read_note, resolve_question), leaving no ambiguity about which operation it performs.

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?

It provides clear operational context: only publish public content, never secrets or private work, and corrections/outcomes have specific prerequisites. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for when-not-to-use, but the exclusions ('Never send secrets or private work') and the idempotency instruction ('Keep request_id identical when retrying the same content') give solid when/how guidance.

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