Bulk Update Frontmatter

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive (destructiveHint=true), but the description adds valuable behavioral details: only notes with actual value changes are touched, it defaults to dry-run, enforces maxFiles, and creates a rollback snapshot. This goes beyond annotations by explaining safety mechanisms.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary purpose, and the second sentence covers behavioral traits and safety features. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. While the description adequately covers the input side and safety behaviors, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, changed files count) or how errors are communicated. For a mutation tool, this information is important for the agent to handle responses correctly.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. However, the description adds higher-level context: 'merge' implies addition/replacement behavior, 'defaults to dry-run' clarifies dryRun's default, and 'enforces maxFiles' gives purpose to the maxFiles parameter. This adds meaning beyond the schema's literal descriptions.

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 merges frontmatter fields into notes under a folder or the whole vault, using the specific verb 'merge' and specifying the resource ('frontmatter fields'). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_frontmatter (single note) and bulk_remove_frontmatter_field (removal).

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 mentions defaults like dry-run and maxFiles enforcement, giving some context on how to use it safely, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_frontmatter for individual notes) or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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