Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it can overwrite/delete existing content (destructive potential), mentions 'use carefully' for overwrite parameter, and describes the return format ('Created note information with path and metadata'). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides solid operational context.

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 perfectly structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, returns), front-loads the core functionality, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words while maintaining completeness.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about behavior, usage boundaries, and return values. It covers the destructive potential of overwrite and distinguishes from alternatives. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or permission requirements, but otherwise quite complete.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. While it doesn't detail individual parameters, it explains the tool's overall behavior with parameters (creating/overwriting notes, setting up templates) that helps understand how parameters work together. The 'Returns' section also provides output context not in the schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create' and 'overwrite') and resource ('note'), distinguishing it from siblings like update_note_tool. It explicitly mentions both creation and replacement functionality, which is more specific than just 'create'.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with clear alternatives named (update_note with specific strategies). It distinguishes this tool from update_note_tool for complete replacements versus partial updates.

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