remove_frontmatter_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool removes a field, implying mutation, but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens if the field does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or if it modifies the note file in place.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and is free of fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description provides only the basic action with no usage context or behavioral detail. Given the lack of annotations and the existence of closely related sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand its behavior and appropriate 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 input schema fully describes both parameters (path and field) with the schema coverage at 100%. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 the action ('Remove') and the target ('a specific field from the frontmatter of a note'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_from_array_field by focusing on a field rather than an array element.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_frontmatter or remove_from_array_field. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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