capture

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but there is no readOnlyHint and the tool appears to write or record data. The description does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, reversibility, or what backup/import_audit actually do beyond listing their parameters.

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 description is compact and front-loads the general purpose before listing actions. The dense action list is useful, though the final pointer to 'query actions' is awkwardly phrased and slightly disrupts readability.

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?

This is a multiplexed action tool with nested params, low schema coverage, and no output schema. The description lists actions and params but omits return behavior, side effects, and enough action semantics to make the tool fully self-contained.

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 only 33%, so the description carries extra burden. It does add meaningful detail by enumerating action values and their nested params, but it does not explain the actor parameter, action typing, or the semantics of params such as result, data, content_type, and connection.

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 says to 'Put something on the map' and lists actions such as session_start, picture_put, backup, and import_audit. This gives a general sense of capture-like behavior, but the metaphor and the heterogeneous action list leave the core purpose vague and do not clearly distinguish it from siblings like report or change.

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?

It says to 'Call with the action and its params' and lists action names, plus points to query for action details. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no criteria for choosing capture over sibling tools such as query, report, or change.

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