init

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a write operation, which files are created, that existing schemas are preserved ("only writes the views that are missing and keeps the rest"), and what happens when preset is omitted. The gap is the `force` parameter, whose effect is never explained on this tool — it appears only in the CLI example, leaving its in-tool behavior opaque.

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-loaded with the WRITE marker and the concrete artifacts, then timing, then preset semantics, then the existing-vault caveat. Dense and largely waste-free, though the final sentence is long and mixes the layout-switching caveat with the `force` flag in a way that slightly blurs the tool's own behavior.

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?

For a two-parameter write tool with no annotations, this covers the essentials: what gets written, when to run it, default preset behavior, and idempotency on already-initialized vaults. An output schema exists so return values need not be described; the only real hole is the unexplained `force` parameter.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It does this well for `preset`, enumerating the layouts (default, para, simple, journal, custom) and the fallback to default — information absent from the schema. However, `force` is undocumented, and the only mention of `--force` is scoped to the CLI, which risks an agent misreading the tool's own `force` flag.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb and resource: "WRITE — sets a vault up: writes `.vault/schema.yml` and the Obsidian Bases views into the vault root." It names the exact artifacts produced, which makes the initialization role unmistakable against file-manipulation siblings like write_file or append_file.

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?

Gives explicit timing ("Run once per vault, right after installing") and an explicit exclusion with an alternative: switching a layout is done via the CLI (`init --preset <name> --force`) or the account page, "never through this tool." That is a when/when-not/alternative triad.

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