obsidian_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals a critical side effect—auto-committing and pushing to git—that is not inferable from the tool name. It does not state whether deletion is permanent or moves to trash, but the main behavioral trait is surfaced.

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 two short sentences: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by the important side effect. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and the critical git side effect. It could clarify trash-vs-permanent deletion, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 only parameter, path, is already fully described in the schema as 'Relative path to the note to delete' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'note from the vault', making the action unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like obsidian_write, obsidian_append, and obsidian_move even without naming them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the verb 'Delete' implies the intended use case. It does not provide exclusions or condition-based routing, so guidance is present only by implication.

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