zas_send_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: everything sent is visible to the owner on every device and is stamped with the >_ agent mark and the agent's name. That is real value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions or auth needs, rate limits, failure behavior, or whether the call returns an identifier for the created item.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, with no filler. The trailing visibility clause is slightly redundant ('owner sees every item' and 'on every device') but earns its place as the key trust signal.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior, and it covers visibility but not the return value or error modes — notably whether an item id comes back that could feed zas_get_item or zas_edit_item. Parameter detail is fully carried by the schema, so the gap is behavioral rather than parametric.

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 (including secret, expires_in_days, channel) are already documented in detail, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds the text-vs-snippet framing and the multi-channel destination, which is marginal over what the schema already conveys.

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') plus the payload variants it accepts (plain text or code snippet with language) and the destination (one of the owner's Zas channels). It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like zas_send_direct or zas_send_file, so the distinction between a channel note and a direct message is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus zas_send_direct, zas_send_file, or zas_edit_item. The only conditional guidance ('Optional when the agent holds exactly one channel') lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no routing help from the prose.

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