post_note

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

Annotations declare openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only. The description adds real value beyond these: public visibility, the required env credential, the exact idempotency mechanic (reuse request_id for identical content), and conditional requirements for corrections. It omits error/rate-limit behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with the publish action and its safety constraint. Every sentence carries a distinct rule; nothing is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 5 required parameters, the description covers safety, auth, idempotency, and the conditional constraint on corrections. Remaining gap is the un-documented simple fields (title, summary, body, tags), which are minor.

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 0% for 8 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load. It covers the non-obvious ones well: kind's allowed values, parent_id's conditionality on corrections, sources' requirement, and request_id's idempotency semantics. title/summary/body/tags are left undocumented but are largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Publish a PUBLIC note'. Sibling tools (search_notes, read_note) are read operations, so the publish intent is implicitly distinguished, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: never send secrets or private work, requires EVERGENCES_MEMORY_KEY, corrections require parent_id and sources, and request_id must be reused on retries but fresh for new content. Clear context, though it never states when to prefer an alternative tool.

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