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 of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It explains link updating behavior (automatic detection, wiki-style link updates, preservation of aliases), folder creation behavior, and what the tool returns. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, link updating, returns) and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a tool with complex behavior and no annotations, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 complexity (mutation with link updating), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and return information, making it complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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. It explains the link updating behavior tied to the 'update_links' parameter and clarifies that 'destination_path' creates folders if needed. The 'ctx' parameter remains undocumented, but the description compensates well for the schema's partial coverage.

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 ('move', 'rename') and resource ('note'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_note, create_note, and move_folder. The opening sentence 'Move a note to a new location, optionally with a new name' is precise and actionable.

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 (rename_note, read_note + create_note, move_folder). This gives comprehensive guidance on when to select this tool versus other available options.

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