vault_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: template requirement, built-in variables, required frontmatter, and the markdown-link path format for output. However, it omits key behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or the exact return value, which are important for a create/mutation tool.

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 primary purpose and then organized into clear sections (templates, variables, requirements, path formatting). It is relatively long but each section earns its place by conveying necessary usage details. The 'No templates found' note is somewhat environment-specific but does not detract much.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the tool returns and its failure modes. It partially does this by describing the output path format, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, success/failure indicators, or how to interpret the response. This leaves important gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds some extra meaning by explaining built-in variable substitution and reiterating that frontmatter.tags is required, but it does not significantly expand on the schema's parameter descriptions. The 'variables' parameter description in the schema is already adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new note from a template.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_edit and vault_append, which modify or extend existing notes. The template requirement is explicit and ties directly to the tool's core function.

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 context for when to use the tool: to create new notes and to ensure proper frontmatter via templates. It also explains required tags and variable handling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for editing existing notes, use vault_edit).

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