frontmatter.delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the no-op behavior and the hash requirement, but does not mention write implications, permissions, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, no extraneous information. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key behaviors.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains only a small part of the tool's behavior and leaves parameter details and return value unexplained.

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% and the description only explains expected_frontmatter_hash briefly. The other four parameters (file, vault, dry_run, keyPath) are not described, leaving the agent without meaning for their usage.

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 'Delete a (possibly nested) key from the file's frontmatter,' providing a specific verb (delete) and resource (key in frontmatter). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frontmatter.set and frontmatter.get.

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?

Includes useful usage notes: 'No-op if key absent' and 'Requires expected_frontmatter_hash when frontmatter exists.' However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives, though the verb and context implicitly differentiate.

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