Merge Vaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that LF/CRLF differences count as conflicts and that dryRun plans without writing. However, it does not clarify whether the source vault is modified, what happens to existing target files, or any side effects. More transparency on permission or file system impact would be beneficial.

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 three main sentences plus a note, front-loading the core action and default target. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No filler or unnecessary words.

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 complex merge operation with no output schema, the description lacks outcome details (e.g., return value, success indicators, error conditions). It does not cover what happens after a merge, such as whether a report is generated or if the target vault is restructured. Given the number of parameters and lack of annotations, more completeness is needed.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining conflict strategies (theirs, ours, rename, skip) and the walking of specific folders. It also mentions sha256 hashing, which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand parameter behavior, especially for 'strategy' and 'kinds'. Schema coverage is 40%, so the description compensates well.

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 merges a source Obsidian vault into a target vault, specifying the folders walked, the use of sha256 hashing, and conflict resolution strategies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'browse_vault_library' (readonly) and 'capture_to_vault' (single file).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another vault tool would be more appropriate. Sibling tools include various vault operations, but no hints are provided for decision-making.

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