Capture context

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the 'silently save' behavior and the lifecycle: captures start as 'captured' (warm tier) and become 'promoted' memories upon resume. It does not disclose potential limits or side effects, but the added context is valuable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and proactive call instructions, then lists parameters with concise explanations. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place by adding value. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 tool with 9 parameters and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and return value (thread id and formatted record). It lacks an explicit output schema but the return description is sufficient. Compared to siblings, it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. However, the description adds behavioral context: explains that next_steps enables resuming to 'continue the thread', gives examples for source, and clarifies the kind parameter's clustering effect. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the 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 purpose: 'silently save a portable context summary from the current session so it can be resumed later in any tool.' It uses specific verbs ('save', 'capture') and resources ('portable context summary', 'session'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mindmap_resume and mindmap_search by framing it as the 'capture half of the loop.'

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 explicit proactive guidance on when to call this tool: when a substantive discussion is wrapping up, the user signals they're done or says 'save this', a key decision is reached, or the user will continue later. It also advises to skip trivial exchanges. This clearly differentiates usage from siblings and sets context.

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