mcp-markdown-vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the two operational modes, error handling in batch mode (stops on first error), fuzzy matching for AST operations, YAML merging for frontmatter_set, and the dryRun preview functionality. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success, but covers substantial operational behavior.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted words. It starts with the core purpose, immediately explains the two modes, then details operation types and special behaviors. Every sentence provides essential information, and the technical details are appropriately placed after the foundational concepts.

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 complex 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does remarkably well. It covers operational modes, error behavior, operation types, and special features like dryRun. The main gaps are the lack of output format explanation (what happens on success) and incomplete parameter documentation (some parameters like headingDepth remain 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?

With only 42% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the distinction between AST operations (targeting headings/block IDs with fuzzy matching) and freeform operations (line/string replacement), clarifies the purpose of dryRun, and explains the operations array structure for batch mode. This compensates well for the schema's gaps, though some parameters like headingDepth remain unexplained.

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 as 'Edit notes' with specific operational modes (single and batch). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings like 'view' (read-only) and 'vault' (storage management) by focusing on modification operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other editing tools since none are listed as siblings.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the two modes (single vs batch) and when to use each. It mentions that batch mode stops on first error and has a max of 50 operations, which helps guide usage decisions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites like note existence.

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