create_base

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 discloses that validation occurs before writing and that invalid structures are rejected with error messages. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects beyond creation, or whether the tool can overwrite existing files.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary sentence, a behavioral detail paragraph, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the validation behavior, parameter meanings, and required fields. Minor omissions include specific return value or success/failure indications, but these are minimal impact.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section provides detailed explanations for all six parameters, including type constraints (e.g., path ending in .base), structure of views (requires type, name, order), and the format of filters, formulas, summaries, and properties. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Create a new Obsidian Base (.base) file with schema validation.' It specifies the verb (create) and resource (base file), and the addition of 'with schema validation' distinguishes it from other base tools like update_base or delete_base.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating a new base) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It could improve by stating 'Use this to create a new base; use update_base to modify an existing base.' Currently, usage guidance is implied.

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