Update frontmatter

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by stating that the body is untouched, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like concurrent modification handling, YAML validation, or effects of providing both 'set' and 'unset'. The annotations already indicate idempotency, non-destructive, and non-read-only nature, so the description's additional value is limited.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning what happens when both 'set' and 'unset' are provided, error handling for missing paths, or YAML format constraints. However, for a simple modification tool, it is adequate.

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 description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. It confirms that fields are YAML frontmatter, but this is largely implied. The description does not clarify valid values for 'set' or behavior of 'unset' with non-existent keys.

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 tool sets or removes YAML frontmatter fields on a note without affecting its body. It uses specific verbs ('Set or remove') and a specific resource ('YAML frontmatter fields on an existing note'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify the note body.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for frontmatter editing) vs. siblings like 'append_to_note' (body editing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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