update_frontmatter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool preserves the note body and uses a merge DSL for operations (set, unset, push, pull). However, it lacks details on side effects, atomicity, or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and then explain DSL. However, 'bytegenau' appears to be a typo (likely 'exactly') which may confuse. Otherwise, concise and 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 mutation tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits behavior of vault, path, expected_hash, client_id, and return value. Critical for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the merge DSL in detail but fails to clarify vault, path, expected_hash, and client_id parameters. Only merge gains semantics; others remain opaque.

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 'Modify a note's frontmatter only', specifying the exact verb (modify) and resource (frontmatter). It also distinguishes from siblings like write_note that modify entire notes.

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 limits usage to frontmatter modifications but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_note or query_frontmatter. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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