Mark raw captures as distilled and log the resulting notes, clarifying which ideas have been processed.
Mark a raw capture as distilled, recording which notes came out of it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| produced | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior: a state transition on a raw capture and recording of produced notes. With no annotations, however, it does not mention reversibility, idempotency, or what happens to previously recorded produced notes, so behavioral coverage is only partial.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and adds the relationship detail without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
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 simple two-parameter state-marker tool, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what the parameters represent. It lacks explicit workflow cues and return-value expectations, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.
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 the description carries the semantic weight. It clarifies that path refers to the raw capture and produced refers to the notes that came out of it, which goes well beyond the bare parameter names. It stops short of describing formats or constraints.
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 specific verb ('mark') on a clear resource ('raw capture') and records the relationship to produced notes. It is clear and distinguishable from creation/reading siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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 phrasing 'mark a raw capture as distilled' implies it is used after distillation has occurred, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related tools like distill_queue or create_concept_note. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.