obsidian_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully surface the non-obvious side effect 'Auto-commits and pushes to git,' which is important for an agent to anticipate. However, it omits other relevant behavioral details such as whether an existing note at the destination is overwritten, whether backlinks are updated, and what happens on failure or when the git push is not possible.

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 exactly two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded first, and the important git side effect is communicated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool, the description plus schema covers the minimum needed to call it: what to move, where to move it, and the git side effect. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description could usefully state whether the destination must not already exist, whether overwriting is allowed, how the move affects vault links, and what return value to expect. These gaps are moderate but not disqualifying for such a simple interface.

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 input schema already describes both parameters ('Current relative path of the note' and 'New relative path for the note') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond confirming that the move happens within the vault, which is already implied by the relative-path wording. It does not clarify path normalization, directory creation, or overwrite behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Move or rename') applied to a clear resource ('a note') and scope ('within the vault'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. The action is distinct from sibling tools like obsidian_read, obsidian_write, and obsidian_delete, so an agent can tell this tool apart without inspecting the schema.

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 intended use is inferable from the verb 'Move or rename,' and there is no other sibling that clearly performs the same action. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or whether it should be used instead of obsidian_write for path changes. This leaves usage routing mostly implicit.

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