capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a write tool. It does add one genuinely useful behavior not in the schema: duplicate-title handling (repeated experience titles allowed, others rejected). However, it says nothing about permissions/auth, what happens on rejected duplicates, or the response, leaving significant gaps.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the duplicate-title rule. No filler, though the type enumeration is somewhat long relative to the information it conveys.

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 19-parameter, zero-required, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is far too thin. It omits conditional requirements (text required unless type=books/book), the nested attributes shape, tag/relation semantics, and uniqueness/error behavior beyond titles.

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 19 parameters, so the description is obligated to compensate and largely does not. The enumerated types loosely map to the `type` enum, but key fields (attributes, relations, unresolved_relations, title uniqueness, the required text/attributes conditionals, kind enums) are unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Capture') plus an explicit enumeration of captureable resource types, and the 'non-URL' qualifier implicitly routes URL content away to save_bookmark. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 'non-URL' phrase hints that this is not for bookmarks/links (implying save_bookmark), which is the only usage signal present. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative among the many siblings.

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