Capture a new org entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states key behaviors: appending to a file, defaulting to inbox.org, and using parent_id for nesting. It does not mention return values, whether the file is created if missing, or what happens on invalid parent_id; these gaps keep it at a minimal-viable 3.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the typical use case, and the two important behaviors (default file and parent nesting). No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 creation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description plus the fully-covered schema is mostly complete. It explains the default file and nesting, which are the non-obvious behaviors. It could still mention return/error behavior, but the high schema coverage mitigates this gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the default file behavior ('Defaults to file "inbox.org" if none given') and the semantic of parent_id ('nest the new entry under an existing entry instead of appending at top level').

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 a specific action ('Append a new entry (headline)') and a specific resource ('a local org file'), and it mentions the org-capture style. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like org_add_note, though 'new entry' versus note-adding implies a distinction; this keeps it at a 4 rather than 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 description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to jot down tasks, notes, or events.' It also explains default behavior and parent nesting, so an agent knows when this tool fits. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, which stops it from being a 5.

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