obsidian_append

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses the upsert behavior (creates if missing) and, more importantly, the significant side effect that it 'auto-commits and pushes to git.' This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before invoking. It stops short of a 5 by not addressing failure modes or reversibility.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste. Each sentence adds a distinct fact: the core action, the edge-case behavior, and the side effect. The most important information is front-loaded first.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what it does, its create-if-missing behavior, and its git side effects. The only notable gap is return-value behavior, but for an append operation this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'path' and 'content.' The description adds only modest context — that content is markdown and that path is relative to the vault — but does not introduce format, encoding, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('note'), and adds a key scoping detail: 'Creates the note if it doesn't exist.' This cleanly distinguishes it from obsidian_write (overwrite), obsidian_read, and the other siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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 append-vs-create behavior implies when to use the tool, but the description never explicitly names obsidian_write as the alternative for replacing content, nor states any when-not-to-use conditions. An agent must infer the choice from the verb alone, which is adequate but not explicit.

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