capture_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context beyond the schema: the note is written to Inbox, tagged #work/<domain>, and is intended for a separate Auto Note Mover process. However, it says nothing about permissions, overwrite/collision behavior, or how the domain is validated, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the destination and tag convention front-loaded. It earns its place, though the terse phrasing leaves semantic gaps that a slightly longer description could have filled.

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 explained. Still, for a three-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description only documents the domain/tag behavior and says nothing about title/body expectations or what happens on write.

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% and all three parameters (title, body, domain) are required. The description only hints at the shape of domain via the #work/<domain> tag format; title and body are entirely unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (Create), resource (work note), destination (Inbox) and a tagging convention (#work/<domain>), which makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like capture_learning and capture_distill. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The mention of Inbox and the #work/<domain> tag implies usage (capture a work-domain note for later processing by Auto Note Mover), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus capture_quick, capture_learning, or capture_distill. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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