Add Document

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

The description discloses that documents are 'full-text indexed' and 'stored with version tracking', adding value beyond the annotations (all false). However, it does not clarify critical behavioral traits such as what happens if both content and path are supplied, whether existing documents with the same name are overwritten or versioned, or any permissions required. Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries more burden but still leaves gaps.

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 four sentences, each conveying distinct information: purpose, indexing/versioning, content input options, and the binary-file alternative. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a mutation tool with a moderate parameter count and an output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: text-only, content via inline or path, metadata support, and the correct alternative for binaries. It falls short on parameter interplay (e.g., path vs content precedence) and what 'name' represents, but overall it equips an agent for typical use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions content, path, and metadata fields (tags, category, priority, notes), but does not explain the role of 'name' vs 'filename', the relationship between content and path, or the vault parameter. With 9 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this partial coverage leaves ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Add a text document to a vault with metadata', a specific verb+resource statement. It also distinguishes from binary-file imports by pointing to vault_import_dir, making the scope (text documents) explicit.

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 this tool vs alternatives: 'For binary files (PDF, DOCX, etc.), use vault_import_dir to import from a directory.' It also explains the two content input modes (inline content or file path), which guides usage choices.

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