Obsidian MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies a file and returns a message, but doesn't describe what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether changes are append-only or overwrite, permission requirements, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the Spanish formatting ('Args:', 'Returns:') is slightly informal. Every sentence adds value, with 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters well, and an output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, it lacks behavioral context like error conditions or side effects, which is a gap for a tool that modifies files.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear meaning for all three parameters: 'nombre_archivo' (file name to modify), 'contenido' (content to add), and 'al_final' (whether to add at the end or beginning). This fully documents parameter purposes beyond the bare schema, though it lacks format details like file extensions or content constraints.

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: 'Agrega contenido a una nota existente' (Adds content to an existing note). It specifies the verb 'agregar' (add) and the resource 'nota existente' (existing note), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'crear_nota' (create note) or 'editar_nota' (edit note). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'agregar_en_seccion' (add to section), leaving some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'editar_nota' (edit note) or 'agregar_en_seccion' (add to section), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing note. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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