execute_command

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

With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits but fails to mention potential side effects of executing arbitrary commands or error behavior for invalid IDs. It only states the basic operation, insufficient for a tool that can trigger arbitrary functionality.

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?

Two concise sentences with useful examples and no filler. Front-loaded with the core action, then relevant guidance and examples.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the workflow: find a command ID, then execute it. It doesn't discuss error handling or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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 already covers commandId, and the description adds value by telling the agent to use get_commands for finding valid IDs and providing example command IDs, which goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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?

Clearly states the action (execute) and the resource (an Obsidian command by its ID). References get_commands for finding IDs, distinguishing it as the execution counterpart and differentiating from sibling command-listing tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use get_commands to find available commands and their IDs, providing essential usage context. Also gives example command IDs to illustrate valid input, but does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool (e.g., for unsupported commands).

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