update_frontmatter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'preserves content' which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't address permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes: 'Update' (action), 'frontmatter fields' (scope), 'in a note' (target), 'preserves content' (behavioral detail). Perfectly front-loaded with essential 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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides basic purpose and one behavioral detail. It's minimally adequate for understanding what the tool does, but lacks guidance, full parameter context, and comprehensive behavioral disclosure expected for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context that parameters update 'frontmatter fields' and that content is preserved, giving meaning to what the parameters affect. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or examples beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 ('Update frontmatter fields') and target ('in a note'), with the specific detail that it 'preserves content'. It distinguishes from generic 'update_note' by focusing on frontmatter fields specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_note' or 'batch_update_notes'. The description implies it's for frontmatter updates, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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