batch_update_frontmatter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the key behavioral detail of merge vs. replace, which is valuable for understanding impact. However, it does not disclose other important traits such as error handling on partial failures, atomicity, or whether the operation is reversible, which are critical for a batch 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, using two short sentences to convey the core purpose and a key behavioral toggle. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

Despite complete parameter documentation, the description omits crucial contextual information for a batch operation: what happens on partial failure, whether changes are applied atomically, and what the return value indicates. Without an output schema and given the destructive potential of 'replace', these gaps leave the description insufficient for confident use.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameters, including the replace boolean and 'set value to null to remove field'. The description's mention of 'merge or replace' adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's description of the replace parameter, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update frontmatter of multiple notes at once', combining a specific verb (update), resource (frontmatter), and scope (multiple notes). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool update_frontmatter, which operates on a single note. The added 'Can merge or replace frontmatter' further clarifies the behavior.

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 phrase 'multiple notes at once' clearly implies this is for batch operations, contrasting with single-note update tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, such as 'use update_frontmatter for a single note'.

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