quick_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Save a new node' implies a write operation, but it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this creates permanent records, error conditions, or what happens on success. The 'optional scheduling' hint is minimal behavioral context.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Save' (action), 'new node' (resource), 'optional scheduling' (key feature). No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'saving' entails (persistence level, where saved), what the optional scheduling does, or what happens after invocation. The agent lacks crucial context for proper tool selection and use.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the single parameter 'state' is a nested object with well-described sub-properties (title, note, url, tags, resurfaceIn). The description mentions 'optional scheduling' which aligns with 'resurfaceIn', adding some semantic context beyond the schema's technical 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 clearly states the action ('Save a new node') and the resource ('node'), with the additional feature of 'optional scheduling' distinguishing it from basic creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'complete_node' or 'snooze_node' which also manipulate nodes.

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 'complete_node' or 'snooze_node'. It mentions 'optional scheduling' but doesn't clarify when scheduling is appropriate versus other node operations, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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