patch_frontmatter

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it preserves key ordering and quote style, and explicitly explains that null values delete keys. These details go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), which only indicate mutation and destructiveness. It adds useful context without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, key guarantees, and deletion semantics. No filler or repetition; every clause adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, deletion semantics, and safety guarantees. It does not mention error cases like hash_conflict, but those are captured in the schema. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), but given the simple tool and existing schema, the description is near-complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the null-deletion behavior for the patch parameter, which is also stated in the schema, and adds no new semantic information beyond what is structured. Thus baseline 3 applies.

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 purpose: setting, updating, and deleting frontmatter keys. It specifies the resource (frontmatter keys) and includes a concrete behavioral guarantee (preserving key order and quote style), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_note that modify note content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_note or replace_in_note. The description gives no context on selection criteria, exclusions, or comparative advantages beyond the formatting guarantee.

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