vault_init

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

The description fully discloses the tool's side effects beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). It explains that setup may 'scans all unmanaged .md files, classifies them... persists a plan to .brain/import-plan.json', that migrate executes the plan, and that keep_original controls whether source files are preserved. The automatic todo conversion is also disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but highly structured with clear 'Actions', 'WORKFLOW', and 'Todo conversion' sections. Every sentence adds necessary information for safe and correct usage of a complex tool. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema/annotations.

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 the tool's two-action complexity, absence of output schema, and the need to guide an agent through a multi-step migration process, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all states (empty, non-empty, already-initialized), the decision workflow, parameter details, and side effects, leaving no critical operational gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter meaning. It defines the allowed values for 'action' (setup/migrate), explains the 'manual_overrides' structure including required 'path' key and supported override fields (target, title, tags, etc.), and clarifies 'keep_original' with a default and consequence. This completely compensates for the empty schema.

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's core purpose: 'Initialize a new vault or migrate existing Obsidian notes to vault-mcp format.' It goes further to enumerate two distinct actions (setup and migrate) with specific behaviors for each vault state, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like vault_capture, vault_read, or vault_analyze.

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 WORKFLOW section provides explicit step-by-step instructions on when to call setup vs migrate, including when NOT to call migrate ('Claude should NOT call migrate until the user confirms'). It also specifies sequencing (e.g., 'review summary + ambiguous_files' before deciding), making usage clear and unambiguous.

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