vault_capture

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: deletion is permanent, refinement is lossy, and confirmation is mandatory. It also specifies that for delete, the user must be shown the title, preview, and path, and asks '确认删除？'. These are not mentioned in annotations and greatly enhance transparency.

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?

The description is lengthy but extremely well-structured with clear headings, action breakdowns, and a numbered workflow. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure aids comprehension. It could potentially be tightened slightly, but the detail is justified given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's two actions, 7 parameters, confirmation requirements, and lack of output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all parameter details, explains the workflow, and provides safety warnings. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with constraints: title (≤50 chars), insight (1–3 sentences), source_type (default 'conversation' with alternatives), original (nullable), tags (list), and path (required, must be in captures/). This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool's dual function: 'Capture a refined insight into the vault, or delete an existing capture.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_read or vault_promote, which have different purposes.

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 an explicit workflow for both save and delete actions, including when to call the tool ('Do NOT call this tool until the user explicitly confirms'), and detailed steps for refinement and confirmation. It also clarifies the difference between save and delete usage, making it clear when each action is appropriate.

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