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 adds useful context beyond the basic action by stating 'creates the daily note if it doesn't exist,' which clarifies a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving 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 directly state the purpose and a helpful usage example. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (a mutation with creation fallback), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and a behavioral nuance but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the single 'content' parameter with its type and formatting note. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles 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 verb 'append' and resource 'today's daily note' with the specific action of adding content. It distinguishes from siblings like 'append_to_note' by specifying 'today's daily note' as the target, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other daily-related tools like 'daily_note'.

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 implied usage context with 'useful for logging tasks, session summaries, or quick entries,' suggesting when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'append_to_note' or 'create_note,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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