patch_vault_file

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., what happens if the heading does not exist), or idempotency. The agent has no insight into risks or guarantees.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It fronts the purpose and lists operations concisely without extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, error handling, behavior when headings are missing or duplicated, or the effect on file structure. The tool's complexity exceeds the description's coverage.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions parameters superficially (path, target heading, operation, content). It does not explain format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity of target, expected content format), default behaviors, or edge cases. The agent has to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 verb 'patch', the resource 'vault file', and the specific context 'relative to a markdown heading'. It also lists the three operations (append, prepend, replace), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_to_vault_file that likely operate on the entire 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?

The description implies usage when modifying content under a specific heading but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions. It lacks exclusion criteria or caveats.

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