capture_quick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is a write, whether it requires authentication, whether it is append-only or idempotent, or what happens on success. The only behavioral signal is the inferred write nature of 'Create', which is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence with no waste and the action/resource/destination front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is too sparse. A note-capture tool typically requires auth context, persistence behavior, tags semantics, and a reason to prefer it over the other capture_* siblings, none of which are addressed.

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 0%, so none of the three parameters (title, body, tags) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning either. It does not explain the title/body split, note the optional tags/default, or clarify any format expectations.

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 states a clear verb (Create) and resource (quick capture note) with a destination (00-Inbox), which distinguishes it from some siblings. However, the sibling set contains capture_learning, capture_work, and capture_distill, and the description offers no criteria for choosing this quick-capture variant over those. The core purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation within a dense capture family.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives. The presence of capture_learning, capture_work, capture_distill, and daily_append in the sibling set makes routing unclear, and the description does not resolve this ambiguity at all.

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