register_vault

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

The annotations only include openWorldHint: false, which provides no safety or side-effect information. The description says 'register' but does not disclose whether this writes to disk, modifies configuration, validates the path, or can override an existing registration. The phrase 'safe access' is vague and unexplained, leaving the agent without critical behavioral details.

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 a single, focused sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, contains no filler or repetition, and every word contributes meaning. This is an example of appropriate minimalism.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides only a bare statement of purpose. It lacks parameter explanations, side-effect disclosure, prerequisites, and any information about what 'safe access' entails. For an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly and safely, far more context is needed.

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 by explaining parameter meanings, but it does not mention any parameters. Although property names like 'path', 'name', and 'readOnly' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'dateFormat' and 'dailyDirectory' are ambiguous, and no guidance is given on required fields, defaults, or relationships between parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('register') and identifies the resource ('existing Obsidian vault path') and the purpose ('for safe access'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vault (which creates a new vault) and unregister_vault (which removes an existing registration).

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 word 'existing' implies this tool is for vaults that already exist on disk, suggesting a contrast with create_vault. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. alternatives, no preconditions (e.g., the path must exist, the vault must not already be registered), and no mention of when not to use it.

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