Merge Summary Into Concept Or Entity Page

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

The description discloses that it can create pages if missing and bumps the 'updated' field. It also mentions vault selection behavior. However, it lacks details on how merging works (append vs. overwrite), what happens to existing content, and any required permissions. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but has gaps.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential context about vault behavior. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, creation vs. merge logic, citation support, no output schema details), the description is too brief. It omits critical information about merge behavior, parameter formats, and return values, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions vaultPath and implies citation-related parameters, but does not explain the purpose or relationship of parameters like newSection, summary, heading, citationSource, citationQuote, etc. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance to fill parameters correctly.

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 title and description clearly state the tool's action: adding a cited section into a concept or entity page, with creation capability. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like notes.create or wiki.ingest.

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 explains the vault selection mechanism and override with vaultPath, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., notes.edit, wiki.ingest) or when not to use it.

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