capacities_create_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key prerequisite: 'Requires the Capacities desktop app to be running.' It also clarifies that any custom object type defined in the space can be created. However, it does not mention response format, error handling, or side effects beyond the obvious 'create' action.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds a critical prerequisite, and finally gives concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema provides rich parameter documentation, and the description adds the crucial desktop app prerequisite and type scope. There is no output schema, but for a straightforward create operation, the context is largely sufficient. It could improve by noting what the tool returns or how invalid types are handled, but it is mostly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Books, People, Meetings, or any custom object type' reinforces the 'type' parameter but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new object of any type in Capacities.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like capacities_add_to_daily_note and capacities_save_weblink by emphasizing it creates standalone objects of any custom type.

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 gives context: 'Requires the Capacities desktop app to be running' and lists possible object types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., save_weblink or add_to_daily_note), nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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