suggest_frontmatter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the return shape ({existing, suggestions, conflicts}), confidence-DESC sorting, and the meaning of the conflicts list.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then modes, then return contract. Dense and every sentence adds information, though the parenthetical clauses make it slightly packed versus a fully scannable form.

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 no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description supplies the return shape and the input-mode contract, which is most of what an agent needs. The undocumented required 'vault' parameter is the remaining hole.

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 carry the load, and it does for path, content, folder_hint, and title by grouping them into named input modes. The 'vault' parameter (the only required one) is never explained, leaving one gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Suggest frontmatter fields for a note') and enumerates the three evidence sources (folder-conventions, wikilink-neighborhood, content heuristics), which cleanly separates it from query_frontmatter and update_frontmatter.

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?

Gives concrete selection criteria between two input modes (existing note via {path} vs. draft via {content, folder_hint, title}) plus the 'at least one of path/content required' rule. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over siblings like query_frontmatter or update_frontmatter.

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