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 critical behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('permanently deleted'), has no undo capability, and includes a warning about irreversibility. It also mentions the return format (confirmation with path), though it could elaborate on error cases or permissions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, warnings, returns), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a destructive tool needing careful explanation.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, warnings, and return values. It could be more complete by detailing error scenarios (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist) or auth requirements, but it's largely sufficient given the 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 50% (only 'path' has a description, 'ctx' is undocumented). The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema for 'path', and doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters adequately.

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 ('Delete a note from the vault permanently') with the resource ('note'), distinguishing it from siblings like move_note_tool or archive operations. It explicitly mentions permanent deletion, which differentiates it from temporary removal or archiving tools.

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' scenarios (removing outdated notes, cleaning drafts, move operations) and 'When NOT to use' guidance (archiving, temporary removal), including a named alternative (move_note to Archive folder). This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over siblings.

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