engi_frontmatter_patch

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, destructive potential, authorization requirements, or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for transparency, and it fails to give any operational details beyond the basic action.

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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it is too minimal to fully inform the agent, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the patch semantics, the role of dry_run, how root and id are used, or any expected outcomes. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing structured information.

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 has 4 parameters with only 25% description coverage. The description does not mention any parameters or their semantics, leaving the agent to infer meanings from the schema alone. For example, 'patch' is an object but its structure and behavior (e.g., merge or replace) are not explained.

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 uses the specific verb 'patch' and identifies the resource as 'YAML frontmatter for a managed document.' It clearly states the action and target, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like engi_doc_patch_section which patches sections. Without explicit context, the distinction is implied but not stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context explaining when patching frontmatter is appropriate compared to other document tools.

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