update_frontmatter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the updated field is automatically set, that only specific keys are valid, and that the tool does not move files. This is sufficient for a simple mutation tool, though it could mention error behavior or authorization needs.

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?

Two sentences precisely convey purpose, scope, and key constraints without unnecessary text. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (2 required params, schema covers everything, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers valid fields, auto-behavior, and differentiates from a sibling 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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by specifying valid keys for the fields object ('title, category, tags (array), created') and clarifying that 'updated se ignora'. This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 uses specific verbs 'Actualizar, modificar o cambiar' targeting 'campos concretos del frontmatter YAML' (title, category, tags, created) and explicitly excludes body modification. It distinguishes from move_note by stating 'este tool solo edita el YAML in situ sin mover archivos'.

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?

It clearly states when to use (to update frontmatter fields) and provides an explicit alternative for moving categories ('Para mover de categoría usa move_note'). Also notes that 'updated se renueva automáticamente' implying no need to set it.

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