wiki_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the note lands in an unreviewed state (downstream review needed) and source_ref is provenance rather than authenticated identity (a trust caveat). It omits permissions/auth requirements, dedup or overwrite behavior, and what is returned on success.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and the second clause earns its place by disambiguating the riskiest parameter. Dense but not padded.

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 4-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin: no auth/permission requirements, no statement of what gets created or returned (note ID/path), and no guidance on related_note's expected format.

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 meaningfully clarifies the most ambiguous parameter (source_ref as provenance, not identity), but says nothing about related_note, leaving an unexplained fourth parameter.

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?

"Save user feedback as an unreviewed inbox note" states a specific verb (save), a resource (user feedback), and a destination with a state qualifier (unreviewed inbox). It never names a sibling (e.g. wiki_propose vs wiki_capture) to sharpen the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase "user feedback" implicitly scopes when this tool applies, and "unreviewed inbox note" hints at the capture-vs-review split with wiki_review_queue and wiki_propose. But there is no explicit "use this when / not when", no alternative named, and no stated prerequisites.

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