obsidian_create_or_append_note

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conditional append-vs-create behavior and slug reuse, which is valuable, but it omits details about failure modes, what 'compatible' means, permission requirements, or output/return behavior.

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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the main purpose; the conditional and pre-step guidance earn their place. It has some redundancy between the first sentence and the 'If compatible... If not...' restatement.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and a precondition but leaves key gaps such as parameter semantics, the definition of 'compatible note', and error handling. The output schema mitigates return-value uncertainty but not these gaps.

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 provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only implicitly references 'slug' as the identifier for an existing compatible note. It does not clarify the meaning of 'title' or 'content', nor how they interact with the slug, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific action ('Create a note or append to an existing compatible note') tied to a named resource ('configured default vault') and explicitly positions itself for ambiguous requests, distinguishing it from sibling tools like obsidian_create_note and obsidian_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?

It gives explicit when-to-use signals ('Use for ambiguous requests like...') and a clear prerequisite ('Before using, prefer calling obsidian_list_notes'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for unambiguous cases.

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