obsidian_append

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

Without annotations, the description is minimal. It implies the note must exist but does not disclose error handling, side effects, or confirmation of success. Adequate for a simple append but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence in French with no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core function and resource. However, it could mention error conditions (e.g., note not found) or return value, but this is not critical for basic use.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (path and content). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 'Ajoute du contenu à la fin d'une note existante' clearly states the action (append) and resource (existing note). It distinguishes from sibling tools like obsidian_write (overwrite) and obsidian_patch_frontmatter (metadata modification).

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 use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that obsidian_write should be used for creating new notes or overwriting, nor does it specify prerequisites like the note must exist.

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