zas_send_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful trait — every item is visibly marked with the >_ agent mark and this agent's name on every device — but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or mutability, which matters for a write 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient overall, though the second sentence leans toward reassurance about attribution rather than operational guidance.

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 annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the visibility/attribution trait, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, it omits usage routing against siblings and deeper behavioral context such as auth or limits, leaving clear gaps.

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 six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the text-vs-snippet distinction and the channel destination but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Send a note' — and clarifies the payload variants (plain text or code snippet with language) plus the destination ('one of the owner's Zas channels'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like zas_send_file or zas_send_direct, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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 offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. It states the destination channel but never says when a note is preferable to zas_send_file or zas_send_direct, so the agent must guess from sibling names.

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