Add Url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: it downloads, extracts main content, and derives the title from the page. However, it says nothing about failure modes (unreachable/blocked URLs), permissions, deduplication, or rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage restriction. No filler; every sentence carries either behavior or a constraint.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, internal behavior, and usage conditions. It is nearly complete, with only edge-case handling left unstated.

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 url, tags, and project are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as URL format expectations beyond http(s) or how tags/project affect storage, so the 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 names a specific multi-step operation: download a web page, extract its main content, and add it to memory, with the title taken from the page. This clearly separates it from add_text and add_file siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives by name.

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 gives an explicit and unusually strong usage constraint: call ONLY if Denis explicitly asks in his current message, never on your own initiative. This is a clear when/when-not rule, but it does not point to a concrete alternative tool for the cases where you shouldn't use this one.

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