quick_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content is placed in an inbox, is not immediately turned into a wiki note, and will be processed later in the MindBase UI. While it does not mention return values or side effects, the core behavioral intent is clearly and honestly described.

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, starts with the core action, uses natural phrasing, and contains no filler. It even embeds the alternative tool name without unnecessary length.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: what the tool does, how it should be used, and when to choose another tool. An agent would be able to invoke it correctly without further clarification.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'tags' parameter at all. However, 'content' is made meaningful through the phrase 'Save content to the inbox,' and 'tags' is a self-evident optional array. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema detail, so the baseline is modest.

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 verb ('Save'), resource ('inbox'), and purpose ('later batch processing'), and explicitly distinguishes this from creating a direct wiki note. It is unambiguous and easily differentiates from the sibling tool create_note.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('save this for later, I will categorize it myself in the MindBase UI') and names the exact alternative (create_note) for when a direct wiki note is needed. This gives the agent a clear decision rule.

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