identify_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the real side effects of the mutation — re-parsing stored text with the correct template's parser and rebuilding tags and connections. It omits permissions, reversibility, and whether a prior ID is overwritten, but the key behavioral consequence is stated.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage condition, then side effects, then args. Every sentence adds information and none is redundant padding; the structure maps cleanly to how an agent would read it.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, side effects, and all parameter semantics — nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate and it does: capture_id is explained as the numeric ID shown as '#N in upload output', template_id is given concrete examples ('RC-007', 'DC-003'), and volume is clarified as optional with '0 = keep'. All three parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Assign or fix the template ID of a stored capture.' The scope is narrowed to UNIDENTIFIED pages or misread IDs, which distinguishes it from upload_capture and correct_ocr in substance, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: pages stored as UNIDENTIFIED (no readable template ID at upload time) or where the ID was misread. This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling (correct_ocr, promote_capture, set_volume) is the alternative for adjacent cases.

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