vault_write_note

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses that the tool replaces the entire file (destructive), commits to the vault's git (side effect), and guarantees a frontmatter block (behavioral guarantee). This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling a write tool.

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 with the core behavior front-loaded and the caveat plus alternatives in the second. Minor redundancy exists between 'Creates or replaces a whole note' and 'It replaces the entire file,' but the former sets scope while the latter emphasizes destructiveness, so each clause earns its place.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essentials: operation, destructive scope, git-commit side effect, frontmatter handling, and sibling routing. The one gap is that it never describes the return value or confirmation behavior on success, which would be valuable given there is no output schema. Otherwise an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so path, content, and frontmatter are already fully documented. The description adds marginal value with 'frontmatter guaranteed' (clarifying the caller avoids the frontmatter block in content), but provides no extra format or syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Creates or replaces'), a clear resource (a whole note), and unique scope: it replaces the entire file while guaranteeing a frontmatter block. It also names sibling tools vault_edit_note and vault_learn as the tools for different jobs, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 routes away from this tool: 'to change one passage use vault_edit_note' and 'to record a learning use vault_learn' with the reasoning that vault_learn picks the destination and propagates on its own. The whole-file vs one-passage distinction gives a clear decision rule for when to use vault_write_note instead.

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