obsidian_append_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool appends (not overwrites), requires an existing note, and uses the default vault, but it doesn't discuss failure modes, authentication, or return values. This is sufficient but not rich.

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 four sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then gives usage guidance and helpful pre-steps. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but every clause adds value.

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 two-parameter append tool, the description provides purpose, usage context, and pre-requisite discovery steps. It omits explicit error/return behavior, but the output schema likely covers that, and the description is adequate for correct 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description indirectly defines both parameters: 'content' is Markdown to append, and 'slug' is a note identifier that should be discovered via list_notes. It gives functional meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 appends Markdown to an existing note in the default vault, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create_note by specifying 'existing note', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling create_or_append_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 explicitly says when to use ('when the user asks to add content to an existing note') and gives helpful pre-steps (list notes first, read note if needed). It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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