rebuild_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It discloses that the tool mutates files (migrates .md files), computes links, generates MOC files, and is safe to run repeatedly. It does not detail potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files) but does state idempotency ('Safe to run repeatedly'), which is valuable behavioral information.

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 three sentences, each adding meaningful information: the core action, the three sub-tasks, and the safe-to-re-run guidance. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 mutates files and has no output schema, the description explains the transformation and hub generation, which is complete enough for a one-time migration tool. It could mention that it is a post-transcription step, but the 'upgrade existing memory' phrase implies that. The only slight gap is lack of explicit mention of any risks (e.g., changing file contents), but 'safe to run repeatedly' mitigates that.

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 only parameter, min_moc_members, is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description mentions 'generates MOC hub files for tag clusters', which gives context for the parameter's purpose. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra value but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Rebuild') and resource ('Obsidian graph view data for all transcriptions'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific actions: migrating .md files to YAML frontmatter, computing [[wikilinks]], and generating MOC files. This is a unique purpose among sibling tools.

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 says 'Run this once to upgrade existing memory for Obsidian' and 'Safe to run repeatedly', implying it is an initialization/upgrade tool. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize it as a one-time migration task.

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