update_metadata

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (updates only frontmatter) but omits details like validation, error handling, or return value. This is adequate for a simple update operation but lacks thoroughness.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides usage guidance and lists relevant fields, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema and a nested metadata parameter, the description covers the core purpose and safe fields. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions (e.g., invalid path), and prerequisites, which limits completeness for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context by listing specific fields (type, level, sign, etc.) that the metadata parameter expects, reinforcing the schema's meaning but not significantly expanding it.

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 updates only YAML frontmatter while preserving the Markdown body. It specifically lists the fields it can modify (type, level, sign, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings like write_file by emphasizing safe changes when body must remain unchanged.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for safe changes... when the note content must not be touched.' It implies alternatives like write_file for body changes but does not explicitly name sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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