Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation operation (implied by 'move'), it handles bulk content ('all its contents'), and it returns status with counts. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a destructive operation.

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, returns), uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, and return values. However, it could better address potential pitfalls (e.g., what happens if the destination exists) and the unexplained 'ctx' parameter, leaving minor gaps.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds value by implicitly clarifying that 'source_folder' and 'destination_folder' refer to paths for moving operations, and it hints at the 'update_links' parameter's purpose ('future enhancement'). It doesn't fully compensate for the 25% gap (e.g., 'ctx' is unexplained), but provides useful context beyond 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 specific action ('Move an entire folder and all its contents') and resource ('folder'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'move_note' which handles individual notes. The verb 'move' is precise and the scope 'entire folder and all its contents' is explicit.

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 (e.g., reorganizing vault structure, archiving projects) and 'When NOT to use' cases (e.g., moving individual notes, creating circular references), including a named alternative ('move_note'). This gives clear guidance on tool selection versus siblings.

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