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. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool automatically updates wiki-style links, preserves link aliases, shows which notes were updated, and has constraints like 'Can only rename within the same directory'. However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, which slightly limits transparency.

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 ('When to use', 'When NOT to use', 'Important', 'Returns'), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently conveys necessary information in a compact format.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and return details. However, it lacks explicit error handling or permission requirements, which are important for a tool that modifies data, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 already documents most parameters well. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of parameters implicitly (e.g., 'Automatically updates all [[wiki-style links]]' relates to update_links) and clarifying constraints like 'must be in same directory' for new_path. This compensates well for the 25% coverage gap.

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 a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('a note'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning what it does not do (e.g., 'Moving notes to different folders (use move_note)'). This provides clear differentiation from alternatives like move_note or create_note.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with concrete examples (e.g., 'Changing a note's title', 'Fixing typos') and named alternatives (e.g., 'use move_note', 'use read_note + create_note'). This gives comprehensive guidance on when to select this tool over others.

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