manage-frontmatter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'manipulating', implying mutation, but does not specify whether changes are reversible, required permissions, concurrency behavior (though expected_mtime hints at it), or side effects. The description lacks important behavioral context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundant information.

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 7 parameters and 7 actions (from schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to use the action parameter, the role of expected_mtime for optimistic concurrency, or what return values are expected (no output schema). A list of actions or usage examples would significantly improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds 'frontmatter properties, tags, aliases, and inline fields' which map to actions, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It meets the baseline but does not compensate for any gaps.

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 states 'Unified tool for manipulating note frontmatter properties, tags, aliases, and inline fields', clearly specifying the verb 'manipulating' and the resources (frontmatter, tags, aliases, inline fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit-note which handles note body content, and manage-tasks which handles tasks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit-note for frontmatter changes or other manipulation tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or explicit context for selecting over siblings.

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