add_aliases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that aliases are added to frontmatter but does not mention whether existing aliases are preserved, how conflicts are handled, or what happens if the note does not exist. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes meaning: the first defines the operation, the second explains its utility.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description provides the core function and rationale, and the schema covers the parameters. However, it lacks behavioral details such as whether aliases are merged or replaced, and it does not mention error scenarios. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (path and aliases) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain them. It adds a small semantic nuance by calling aliases 'alternative names,' but this is marginal 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 the action ('Add aliases') and the target resource ('a note's frontmatter'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_tags. It also explains the purpose ('Aliases help find notes by different names'), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 by explaining the benefit of aliases ('help find notes by different names'), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. This provides a clear context without naming other options like add_tags or set_frontmatter_property.

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