consolidate_captures

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that source capture IDs and line numbers are preserved, that sources remain reachable through their original IDs until LRU eviction, and that the operation fails if the consolidated capture cannot be admitted while retaining sources. What it does not clarify is whether the originals are ever removed by a successful consolidation, leaving a small ambiguity about destructiveness.

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 core action and then the retention and failure behavior. No filler, though the phrasing around admission failure is slightly heavy for the information conveyed.

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 no explanation, and the retention/failure semantics are covered. However, for a tool with four fully undocumented parameters, the description omits any guidance on capture_ids, max_captures, or max_bytes, which leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at capture_ids ('from multiple captures') and max_bytes ('bounded', 'If records do not fit'), but never names or explains label, max_captures, or the size constraint semantics, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create one bounded, searchable JSON capture from multiple captures.' That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like capture_text, capture_file, and search_capture. It stops short of naming a sibling or scoping when this is preferred, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for merging several existing captures rather than creating one. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over capture_text/capture_file, nor any exclusions. Implied-but-unstated context warrants a 3.

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