Sync presets with the vault

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: export READS TD and WRITES Markdown, import READS note and WRITES into TD merging by name, and it returns the note path plus affected preset names. This exceeds the annotation coverage.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, action semantics, return value, usage guidance, and prerequisite. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. This is concise and well-structured.

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 two-action sync tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the workflow, return value, relationship to sibling tool, and required configuration. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds some context like merging behavior and default paths, but doesn't significantly enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what schema descriptions already provide.

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 states exactly what the tool does: bridges manage_presets snapshots with the Obsidian vault, with explicit export/import directions. It also distinguishes from sibling manage_presets by noting that manage_presets captures/recalls live, whereas this tool is for version-control/share.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to version-control or share presets across machines; use manage_presets to capture/recall them live.' This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use. It also states the prerequisite of a configured TDMCP_VAULT_PATH.

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