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 states the action ('toggle a task's completion status'), which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the change is reversible, what happens on error, or the response format. 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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second explains parameter usage. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 three parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter identification well, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, error handling) and return values, which are important for a mutation tool. It's adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 three parameters (ref, file, line) with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the identification logic ('by ref or by file and line together'), which clarifies the parameter relationships, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('toggle a task's completion status') and the resource ('task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_tasks' (which lists tasks) or 'append_to_note' (which modifies note content). It uses precise verbs and specifies the exact operation on the target resource.

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 implies usage by specifying how to identify tasks ('by ref or by file and line together'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tasks' for viewing tasks or 'set_property' for other modifications. It provides some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not directives or named alternatives.

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