capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The main description only says 'save ... to memory' and does not disclose important behaviors like secret redaction, the flattening of multi-message captures, or ranking/stale effects. These details are only in the parameter schema descriptions, not the main description.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third clarifies input formats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate for the core use case but does not provide a high-level overview of isolation options (team_id, user_id, agent_id, task_id) or special features like supersedes and override_rejection. The schema descriptions compensate substantially, but the main description could more proactively guide the agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The main description adds marginal value by summarizing the two capture modes ('single text string, or a list of role-based conversation messages'), but this is redundant with the schema's content and messages descriptions. It does not offer new meaning beyond structured fields.

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 states 'Save a decision, a learning, or a task outcome to memory' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like recall (retrieval) and forget (deletion) by clearly framing this as a write-to-memory operation.

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 gives explicit usage triggers: 'Call this tool after you complete a non-trivial task, make a decision, or fix a bug with a known root cause.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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