Capture a note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: append-only, never overwrites, never writes outside the vault, symlink escapes refused, and capture is immediately searchable. That is exactly the safety and effect profile an agent needs to decide it can call this freely.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and default target, then usage, then guarantees. No filler or repetition.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, safety, and semantics thoroughly. The only minor gap is that it never says what a successful call returns (path written, timestamp, etc.), which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more relevant.

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 only 50% ('text' is undocumented in the schema), but the description compensates by explaining the append-and-timestamp behavior of the content and restating the default/alternate target for 'to'. It does not cover the maxLength bounds, but the intent of both parameters is clear.

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 ('Append a timestamped line to lore/inbox.md') with the default target and an allowed override. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from lore_assert_fact by scoping to 'fleeting observations ... not atomic facts', so an agent can route between the two without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('fleeting observations worth keeping that are not atomic facts'), which is real selection guidance. It does not name a sibling tool outright as the alternative, so the routing is inferable rather than stated.

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