vault_add_links

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses several key behaviors: deduplication by basename, automatic section creation, exact path requirement, and the special markdown link format for output. This transparency goes well beyond the bare schema and gives the agent essential operational knowledge.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the core action, then adds crucial behavioral details and path formatting instructions. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy.

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 four parameters and no output schema, this description covers essential aspects: link addition, deduplication, section creation, and path handling. It slightly lacks explicit error behavior (e.g., nonexistent path), but this is not critical for correct usage.

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 already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds extra meaning by explaining how the path parameter should be represented when relaying to other tools and clarifies dedupe behavior for links, elevating it slightly above the baseline.

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 verb 'add', the resource 'annotated wikilinks', and the target context 'a note's section'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_write or vault_append, which handle different content modifications.

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 implies usage context by detailing behavior (dedupe, section creation, exact path requirement) and provides a specific note about how to pass paths to other vault tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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