Prepend to Note

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

The description discloses write behavior (inserts content), frontmatter handling, and failure condition. Annotations are all false, so no contradiction. It could mention whether the operation is reversible or if it requires authentication, but overall it provides good behavioral context beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides essential information. No fluff or repetition.

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 covers behavior, constraints, and use cases adequately for a mutation tool. It doesn't mention return values or side effects, but it's reasonably complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds meaning by clarifying the insertion location ('after YAML frontmatter') and that the path is relative to vault root. This adds value beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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 inserts content at the top of an existing note's body after YAML frontmatter. It uses specific verbs ('Insert', 'add') and resource ('note's body'), and distinguishes it from siblings like append_to_note which adds at the bottom.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'adding new items to the front of a running list, pinning context, or inserting TL;DR sections.' It also states failure condition if note doesn't exist. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implied difference from append_to_note.

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