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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It implies a write/build operation gated by approval, but omits permissions, whether it mutates state or creates artifacts, dry-run behavior, failure handling, and idempotency.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is too terse for a five-parameter mutation tool and lacks the structure needed to surface key operational details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 20% schema coverage, the definition should explain the approval gate, required identifiers, dry-run semantics, and result expectations. One sentence leaves essential context missing.

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 only 20% (only notification_message is documented), and the description mentions none of the five parameters. captureJobId, operatorAppId, approved, and dryRun remain unexplained beyond their names.

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 the operation as building an operator capture folder and adds the approval precondition, so the core action is clear. It does not, however, distinguish it from sibling capture/export tools or clarify what the resulting folder contains.

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?

Mentions 'after approval' as a timing/prerequisite, giving some implied usage context. But it provides no when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives such as create_capture_job or export_har, and no explanation of how approved/dryRun affect selection.

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