post-draft-note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions Markdown-to-HTML conversion but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'post'), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys core functionality. No wasted words, though it could be more front-loaded with key behavioral details. The Japanese text is clear and direct.

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?

Incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks essential context: authentication needs, what 'posting' entails (publishing live?), error handling, return values, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a 4-parameter write operation, this is inadequate.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained parameter interactions (e.g., 'id' for updates vs. new posts).

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 ('投稿する' - post/publish) and resource ('下書き状態の記事' - draft article), specifying it converts Markdown to HTML. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'add-magazine-note' or 'post-comment', but the focus on draft articles provides some implicit distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions converting Markdown to HTML, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when to use 'id' parameter for updates, or how it differs from similar tools like 'add-magazine-note' or 'post-comment'.

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