vault_write_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key atomicity behavior (all-or-nothing) and the structure of entries. It does not mention permissions or overwrite semantics, but atomicity is a critical non-obvious trait.

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 with two sentences plus a parameter breakdown. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence contributes value without 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 batch write tool, the description covers atomicity and parameter structure sufficiently. It does not explain overwrite behavior, but given the output schema exists and the sibling tool vault_write provides context, 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 schema only defines entries as an array of arbitrary objects, offering 0% coverage of its internals. The description compensates by explicitly stating each dict must have 'path', 'frontmatter', and 'body' keys, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Write multiple notes atomically in a single transaction,' using a specific verb and resource while distinguishing from siblings like vault_write by emphasizing batch and atomicity.

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 use for batch atomic writes but does not explicitly name alternatives like vault_write for single notes or state when not to use this tool. Context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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