personal_finalize_capture

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 reveals key constraints (precondition for 'derived', reason requirement for 'no-derivation-needed', and mandatory invocation), but omits side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. This is a moderate disclosure given the tool's mutation-like nature.

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 brief sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the critical usage constraint. There is no wasted text; every clause conveys necessary information.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow constraints (preconditions, mandatory call) but leaves out error conditions and the response format. It is adequate for a simple finalization action but not fully comprehensive.

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 must compensate. It explains the meaning of the disposition enum values ('derived' and 'no-derivation-needed') and the reason requirement, but does not explicitly describe capture_id (though it is inferable from context). It adds some value but not full compensation for all parameters.

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 action (closing the derivation loop) and the resource (current verbatim capture), and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the finalization step required before answering. It is clear enough but uses jargon ('派生闭环') that might be less explicit than 'finalize'.

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?

It explicitly says '必须调用' before answering, providing a clear trigger for use. However, it does not list alternatives or conditions when this tool should not be used, leaving the choice among siblings to inference.

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