Save Weblink to Capacities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that weblinks are create-only and immutable afterwards, that title/description override auto-fetched metadata, that other properties are not settable, and that `()` tasks and `#tags` in notes create objects as a side effect. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs, duplicate-URL behavior, or what a successful save returns.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action and the create-only constraint front-loaded. The stacked parentheticals are information-rich but slightly heavy; no sentence is genuinely wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers creation semantics, field limitations, markdown conventions, and side effects well. Return values are not needed, though duplicate-handling and any side effects of the metadata fetch remain 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining that title/description override auto-fetched page metadata and are the ONLY settable fields, and that notes is the channel for tags, tasks, and links. That override semantics is not evident from the schema alone.

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 a URL as a weblink object" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical that weblinks are create-only in the API separates this from create_object/update_object siblings. An agent knows immediately this is the weblink-creation path.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool (creating a weblink) and what cannot be done through it (updating, setting Category/Topic or other properties) and steers tagging/annotation to the notes field instead. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the create-only constraint effectively rules out the update path.

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