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 that content is added 'after the frontmatter' and that the note must be 'existing', which are useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't disclose critical aspects like whether this operation is destructive (modifies the file), what happens if the file doesn't exist, or any permission/error handling, leaving 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides a practical use case, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a use case but lacks details on behavior, error conditions, or output. However, the 100% schema coverage for parameters and clear purpose keep it from being severely inadequate.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters well. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'file' and 'path' or provide examples for 'content'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('prepend content after the frontmatter') and resource ('a note'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'append_to_note', which handles similar content addition but at a different location in the 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 some implied usage context ('useful for adding a summary or status update at the top of an existing document'), suggesting when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 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.