vault_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool overwrites existing notes, requires specific frontmatter fields (type, confidence), expects the body to start with '# Title', and returns warnings for structural issues. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention permissions, data loss explicitly, or error conditions.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a compact argument list, and a final sentence on return behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or 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 write operation with an output schema, the description covers the core action, all parameters, required metadata, and a return behavior (warnings). It does not mention potential error cases, prerequisites (e.g., vault root must exist), or whether directories are created, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 provides only parameter names and types (body, path, frontmatter) with no descriptions. The description adds substantial meaning: path is relative to vault root with an example, frontmatter is a YAML dict with required fields, and body should start with a heading. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's action: 'Create or overwrite a note in the vault.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vault_read, vault_edit, and vault_delete. It unambiguously identifies what the tool does.

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 by describing the action (create/overwrite a note), which tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like vault_write_batch for batch operations or vault_edit for partial edits. Thus it has clear context but no exclusions.

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