vault_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the operations and their behaviors (e.g., 'set_frontmatter (merge update)'), and notes that it 'Returns warnings if the edit introduces structural issues' — useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes beyond warnings.

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 well organized with a clear first sentence, an 'Args' section listing parameters, and a final note about return behavior. Every line adds necessary information; no fluff.

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?

The tool involves multiple operations with nested parameter schemas, and the description covers all of them explicitly. With an output schema present (indicated by context), the description need not explain return values beyond the warning behavior. Complete for invoking the tool correctly.

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 0% and the schema is minimal (just types/names). The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (path, operation, params) and provides per-operation parameter structures with examples (e.g., replace_string: {old, new}).

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 a specific verb ('Apply an incremental edit') and a specific resource ('an existing note'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like vault_write ('without rewriting the full content').

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 when to use this tool ('without rewriting the full content') but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It lacks direct comparison to siblings like vault_write or vault_write_batch.

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