obsidian_append_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic append action and fails to mention whether the file is created if missing, how tags/timestamp are handled, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is informative, with no filler or 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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It lacks details on tag/timestamp formatting, file creation behavior, and edge cases, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description adds no explanation for the 'tags' or 'timestamp' parameters; 'line' is only implied by 'append one line.' The description does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Append one line') and resource ('today's inbox file'), making it distinct from siblings like obsidian_append_note or obsidian_create_note. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear usage trigger: 'Use when the user asks to add/save/capture something to inbox.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the inbox focus differentiates it from note-related siblings.

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