Update Metadata

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: only YAML frontmatter is written, the Markdown body is preserved exactly, and specific fields are scoped. It does not clarify whether the metadata object replaces or merges with existing frontmatter, which is a minor gap given the destructive hint.

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?

Two sentences contain all the essential information with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core guarantee, and the second provides the usage context and allowed fields.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what changes, and what is preserved. The main omission is the merge-vs-replace behavior of the metadata object, which could affect how an agent constructs the call.

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 description coverage is 100% for both path and metadata, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the allowed metadata fields (type, level, sign, artifact_sign, tags, parents, parents_meta) and clarifying that metadata only applies to frontmatter, not the body.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Update'), a precise resource ('YAML frontmatter for an existing note'), and an explicit preservation guarantee ('preserve the Markdown body exactly'). It also names the exact metadata fields, making it clearly distinguishable from write_file and other siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for safe changes to type, level, sign, artifact_sign, tags, parents, and parents_meta when the note content must not be touched.' It does not explicitly name an alternative like write_file for body edits, but the 'only frontmatter / preserve body exactly' language strongly implies the boundary.

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