Create, overwrite, or append content in an Obsidian note by specifying path, content, and mode. Safely persist notes in your vault with path confinement and no hard deletes.
Write content to a note. mode: 'create' | 'overwrite' | 'append'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that 'overwrite' destroys existing content, that 'create' may fail on an existing path, or whether any permissions are required — the most safety-relevant facts for a write tool are absent.
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?
Two terse sentences with the core action front-loaded and the mode list appended. Efficient, though the mode list is under-explained rather than over-long.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a three-parameter write tool with no annotations the description omits the semantics of the destructive modes and the meaning of path/content. Not enough for an agent to call this safely.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the three legal mode values (genuinely useful, since the schema has no enum), but says nothing about 'path' or 'content' format, and the mode values are listed without explaining their behavior.
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?
States a specific verb ('write') and resource ('a note'), and the mode enumeration signals the write variants. It is distinguishable from read_note/list_notes/move_note by the verb alone, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings that also mutate notes.
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?
No guidance on when to choose create vs overwrite vs append, or what happens if the target already exists or does not exist. The agent must guess which mode is appropriate for its situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.