obsidian-ts-mcp

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 mentions 'Supports optional content and templates,' which adds some context beyond the schema, but fails to cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error handling for duplicate names without overwrite, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted verbiage, and each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or behaviors.

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 (a mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and some usage but misses behavioral details like what happens on success/failure or return values. For a creation tool, more context on outcomes and constraints would 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'Supports optional content and templates,' which loosely relates to 'content' and 'template' parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

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 ('Create a new note') and resource ('in the Obsidian vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'append_to_note' or 'read_note' by specifying creation rather than modification or reading. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'daily_note' which might also create notes, so it's not fully differentiated from all 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 some usage context with 'Use this when you need to record a new session, decision, or piece of documentation,' which implies scenarios for creation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'daily_note' for date-based notes or 'append_to_note' for adding to existing notes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps in decision-making.

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