summarize_to_obsidian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. "Durable" signals persistence and the second sentence flags that session type changes storage behavior, but overwrite semantics, permissions, and the meaning of "keep Markdown behavior" are all left undefined.

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?

At two sentences it is appropriately short and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence, however, is compressed into unexplained internal jargon, so the brevity comes at the cost of comprehension rather than from efficiency.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Still, for a write/persist tool with zero annotations, no parameter documentation, and an opaque statement about session isolation, the description leaves out too much for an agent to call it confidently.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains project_name's role as a target or destination key, nor the semantics of session_id (including its empty-string default), even though session scoping is the one behavioral distinction it raises.

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 phrase "Save a durable summary" gives a verb and resource, so the basic action is legible. But it never says what is being summarized, where the summary lands (Obsidian is only implied by the tool name), or how it differs from siblings such as record_decision or share_memory_record.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the ten sibling tools. The clause about MCP/explicit sessions vs. legacy calls hints at a branching condition, but an agent cannot determine from it when this tool is the correct choice.

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