auto_backlink_vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('add backlinks') and scope ('entire vault'), but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive operation (modifies notes), requires specific permissions, handles errors, or provides progress feedback. For a tool that likely modifies multiple notes, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It front-loads the main action ('automatically add backlinks') and elaborates only as needed. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 tool's complexity (vault-wide processing with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., success status, report), error handling, or performance implications (e.g., time-intensive for large vaults). For a potentially destructive batch operation, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a vault-wide processing scope. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or defaults.

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 specific action ('automatically add backlinks') and the resource ('throughout the entire vault'), with precise mechanics ('detecting note names in content and converting them to wikilinks'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'suggest_connections' or 'analyze_note_relationships' by focusing on automated link creation rather than analysis or suggestion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing notes), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time editing), or compare to siblings like 'suggest_connections' (which might propose links without applying them). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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