Sync Note Links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key safety trait -- 'additive only, never removes a link you added by hand' -- which tells the agent the operation is non-destructive to hand-authored content. However, it says nothing about idempotency on repeat runs, whether existing wikilinks are deduplicated, or whether indexing state is required.

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 tight sentences, the operational scope front-loaded and the safety guarantee second. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers what is written and the additive guarantee. It leaves open what counts as a 'curated note', whether the vault parameter is required or defaults to the active vault, and what state the graph must be in beforehand.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the single parameter 'vault' is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no guidance on what the vault identifier is or that it defaults to null. Unlike the zero-parameter baseline, this one undocumented parameter must be compensated for in prose and is not.

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?

Specific verb (add) plus resource (wikilinks in curated notes) and a precise trigger condition (graph neighbors that also have a note), with the qualifying edge types enumerated. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like write_note or update_note_frontmatter, which also mutate note content, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the tool fires (after graph neighbors exist and have their own notes), which is useful context. But it gives no explicit when-not, no prerequisites (e.g. must the vault be indexed first?), and names no alternative such as write_note for manual linking.

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