Create Capacities object from URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint false. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about 'optionally adding structural API 2.0 blocks' and clarifies the object type as 'web-resource'. However, it does not go beyond this, and no contradictions exist. This is adequate context but not rich.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes a direct pointer to the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place without redundant fluff.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (5 parameters, deep blocks schema, output schema), the structured fields are extraordinarily rich and self-explanatory. The description clearly communicates the core action, the object type, and selection guidance, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not explain everything, but the structured data fills the gaps.

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%, and each parameter (url, title, blocks, apiToken, description) already has detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'structural blocks', which is already covered by the blocks parameter description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool creates a Capacities web-resource object from a URL, using a specific verb and resource type. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_object_from_url_markdown by declaring itself the 'preferred URL-import tool' and qualifying when the Markdown variant should be used.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'This is the preferred URL-import tool; use create_object_from_url_markdown only when Markdown authoring is specifically requested.' This directly states when to use this tool versus the primary alternative, giving clear when/when-not context.

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