capacities_save_to_daily_note

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation) and openWorldHint=true (suggesting flexible use), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions adding text to a daily note but doesn't disclose whether this appends or overwrites, how content is formatted, or any rate limits. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but lacks operational details.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the target is a daily note, but lacks details on behavior (e.g., append vs. overwrite), error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations help, but more context would improve completeness.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'markdown text' and 'today's daily note' but these are already covered by mdText and implied by the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Add markdown text') and target resource ('today's daily note in a Capacities space'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like capacities_save_weblink, which would require mentioning this is specifically for daily notes rather than general saving operations.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capacities_save_weblink or capacities_search. It mentions the target is 'today's daily note' but doesn't explain when daily notes are appropriate versus other content types, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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