Remove Frontmatter Field

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it removes the field without replacing the note body. However, it does not clarify behavior when the field does not exist, which could conflict with the idempotentHint (the operation might error instead of being idempotent). Some ambiguity remains.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part is essential and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 annotations and schema, the description is mostly complete. It could improve by mentioning edge cases (e.g., field not found) or return behavior, but these are not critical for a simple removal operation with idempotentHint.

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 documents both parameters. The description adds only that the field is 'top-level frontmatter field name,' which repeats the schema description. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Remove exactly one YAML frontmatter field') and the constraint ('without replacing the note body'), distinguishing it from siblings like update_frontmatter which modifies fields.

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 usage for removing a single field but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor provide any when-not guidance or exclusions. With siblings like update_frontmatter and replace_text, clearer differentiation would help.

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