obsidian-ts-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is for appending to existing notes, implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or how it interacts with note formatting. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. There is no wasted text.

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 complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or output format, which are needed for adequate agent understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'file' and 'path' or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Append content') and target resource ('to the end of an existing note'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_note', 'prepend_to_note', and 'read_note'. It specifies the verb+resource+scope precisely.

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 context for when to use this tool ('Useful for adding session logs, tasks, or follow-up notes to an existing document'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'prepend_to_note' or 'create_note' for new notes.

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