Bulk Remove Frontmatter Field

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

Description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: defaults to dry-run, enforces maxFiles, creates rollback snapshot. This is essential for a destructive tool (annotations: destructiveHint=true). No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then safety features. No unnecessary words. 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?

No output schema, but description covers scope, field restriction, dry-run, maxFiles, and rollback. It lacks details on return value or error handling, but for a bulk tool this is sufficient. Could mention what the output looks like.

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% (all parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the single-field limitation explicit in the operation, and reinforces defaults (dryRun true) and constraints (maxFiles cap). While schema covers individual param details, the description provides holistic context.

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 tool removes exactly one frontmatter field from every note under a folder or whole vault. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_frontmatter_field (single note) and bulk_update_frontmatter (different operation) by specifying the scope and single-field constraint.

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 when to use: for bulk removal of a frontmatter field with safety features (dry-run, maxFiles, rollback). It mentions rollback_bulk_edit for restoration, providing context for safe usage. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use or compare to other bulk tools.

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