Merge Vaults

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the walking of specific folders, uses sha256 hashing, describes four conflict strategies, explains dry run behavior, and notes LF/CRLF differences count as conflicts. Annotations only indicate destructiveness; description provides the rest.

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 at four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 (5 parameters, destructive operation, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, conflict resolution, dry run, folder mapping, and a note on line endings. It is missing some details like error handling or return behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of the 'kinds' parameter (listing folders), the 'strategy' parameter (defining each option), and the 'dryRun' parameter. It also clarifies default values for 'targetVaultPath' and 'kinds'. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool merges the contents of a source Obsidian vault into a target vault, specifying the folders it walks and conflict resolution strategies. It is specific about the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture or save.

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 the tool (for merging vaults) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among sibling tools. It explains the strategies and dry run but lacks usage boundaries.

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