update_links_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full safety burden. It discloses the write operation, the target field (`related`), the semantic model (bge-m3, 1024d), and that it only touches notes with embeddings. It does not say whether existing/manual related entries are overwritten, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are needed – meaningful gaps for a mutation 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?

Front-loads the action, then the mechanism, then a clean Args block. No redundant sentences; every line contributes scope or behavior information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a single optional parameter keeps the surface small. The description covers purpose, mechanism, and scope adequately; the only real gap is the overwrite/reversibility behavior, which is compounded by absent annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates: it defines note_path as a relative path within the vault, gives a concrete example ('decisions/my-note.md'), and explains the empty-string default selects all notes. This is the one parameter and it is well explained.

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 and resource: refresh related wikilinks in one or all notes, and specifies it writes to the frontmatter `related` field. This distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling find_related_notes, though it never names that sibling to make the split explicit.

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?

Provides implicit scoping guidance via 'one note or all notes' and 'Leave empty to update ALL notes that have embeddings', which tells the agent how to control scope. However, it never states when to prefer this over find_related_notes, update_note, or the other link/graph tools, so alternatives are left to inference.

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