Update Obsidian Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely fails. It doesn't say whether 'new content' replaces the entire note body or merges, whether existing frontmatter is preserved when the frontmatter parameter is omitted, or what happens if the filename does not exist — all critical for an unannotated 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for the phrasing. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing behavioral detail.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested frontmatter object. Given that complexity, the description should at minimum cover overwrite semantics, frontmatter handling, and failure behavior on a missing note; it covers none of these.

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 all three parameters including the optional frontmatter object are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema and never mentions the frontmatter parameter or its preservation semantics.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing note') and the word 'existing' implicitly signals this is not the create path. It doesn't name a sibling alternative explicitly, but an agent can distinguish it from obsidian-create-note and obsidian-get-note without opening schemas.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequiments (e.g. does the note need to exist already?). The distinction from obsidian-create-note is only implied by the word 'existing', leaving the agent to infer it.

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