frontmatter.set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that frontmatter block is created if absent and requires expected_frontmatter_hash unless file has no frontmatter. However, it does not explain overwrite behavior, return values, or potential side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and nesting capability. No unnecessary words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description is incomplete. It omits return behavior, parameter details for most fields, and error conditions.

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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. Only expected_frontmatter_hash is clarified. The required parameters file, keyPath, value, and optional parameters vault, dry_run are not described, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 verb (set), resource (key in frontmatter), and scope (possibly nested via dot-notation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frontmatter.get and frontmatter.delete.

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 implies usage for setting frontmatter values but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like apply_edits or file.replace. It mentions a precondition (expected_frontmatter_hash) but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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