capture_to_vault

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 add real value: path allowlist checks, no cookie/browser auth flags, no generated memory cards, and untrusted source labeling. It still omits what happens on a blocked path, whether existing files are overwritten, and what failure looks like, so the safety profile is only partially disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the deliverable front-loaded and the default stance second. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the two artifacts it writes, which covers the return-value gap. However, for a write tool with no annotations it does not address overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or error handling, leaving a mutation with meaningful unresolved questions.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no format or syntax detail for uri, vault, lang, or tags beyond what the schema provides, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 (capture) and resource (one source) plus the exact outputs produced: Markdown plus an .omd.json manifest in an Obsidian-compatible local vault. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like convert_to_markdown or inspect_source, so an agent must infer the boundary between capturing and merely converting.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison against convert_to_markdown or inspect_source, which are the obvious alternatives for the same kind of source. 'Capture one source' weakly implies single-source scope, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right pick versus its siblings.

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