distill_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that video/podcast URLs 'returns guidance' (not a full distillation), specifies the output directories, and explains the async task behavior. This goes beyond the basic action and helps set expectations, though it could mention error handling or permissions.

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 well-structured with bullet points, concise and front-loaded. The first line states the core purpose, followed by a clean 'Supports' list and 'Output' list, closing with an async tip. Every sentence adds value with 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?

The description covers the essential aspects: supported inputs, outputs, and async behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, it effectively communicates what the agent needs to know. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the response format for the normal (non-async) case, but this is not critical.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains when to set async_mode=true (large documents), gives an example for obsidian_subdir ('飞书蒸馏'), and elaborates on the url parameter by listing supported types. This enriches the agent's understanding of how to use each parameter.

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: 'Distill content from a URL into HTML article + Obsidian note.' The verb 'distill' is specific, and the resource is the URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like distill_file (likely for local files) by emphasizing URL-based input, and from get_distill_status/list_distillations by focusing on the distillation action.

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 clear usage context by enumerating supported URL types (Feishu, webpages, PDFs, video/podcast) and explains when to use async_mode ('For large documents, set async_mode=true and poll with get_distill_status'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like distill_file, leaving some implicit inference to the agent.

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