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 specifies 'Only removes exact matches' (important constraint), explains hierarchical tag handling, and describes the return value (updated tag list with count). However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if note doesn't exist) or permission requirements.

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, when to use, when not to use, note, returns) and every sentence earns its place. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates necessary information without redundancy.

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 good coverage: clear purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints, and return value description. It could be more complete by addressing error cases or permission requirements, but it covers the essential context well given the complexity.

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 67% schema description coverage (2 of 3 parameters documented in schema), the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies that tags should be provided 'without # prefix' and that removal is 'exact matches only', which complements the schema's tag description. The 'ctx' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, but the description provides good coverage for the core parameters.

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 ('Remove specific tags from a note's frontmatter') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_tags_tool' and 'add_tags_tool'. It specifies the exact resource (tags in note frontmatter) and scope (exact matches only).

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 (cleaning up outdated tags, removing temporary tags, etc.) and 'When NOT to use' guidance with named alternatives (use update_tags for removing all tags or replacing tags). It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling update_tags_tool.

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