update_frontmatter

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

Describes core behavior (merge is shallow, arrays/objects replaced) and the restriction to existing .md notes, but omits side effects like return values, error handling, or whether it preserves unrelated fields. With no annotations, more detail would be expected for full transparency.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences covering core functionality and constraints. No filler or redundant 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?

Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an update operation. It could mention what the operation returns or typical error conditions, but the essential usage and merge semantics are covered.

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 100% and each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema itself. The merge false behavior ('replace all frontmatter') is only inferable from the schema's description of the default true, not from the tool narrative.

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 ('Update') and resource ('YAML frontmatter on an existing Markdown note'), clearly distinguishing it from note content operations like write_note or append_note. The scope is precise and 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 usage for modifying frontmatter and includes constraints (.md only, merge behavior), but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over siblings such as write_note or create_note. No direct alternative comparison is provided.

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