obsidian_template

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 confirms this is a creation operation but does not disclose whether existing notes get overwritten, what happens if the template or path is invalid, or how variable substitution behaves. For a mutating tool without annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word adds meaning, and the core action and resource are stated immediately.

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 tool has three parameters, variable substitution behavior, a relative path requirement, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the core purpose. It does not explain what the tool returns, how vars interact with the template, or what happens on missing/invalid inputs. An agent would need to inspect external documentation or experiment to invoke it reliably.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by clarifying that the template is a named file in the Templates folder and that the path is relative, but it does not expand on the vars substitution mechanics or path constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Create a new note') and a specific mechanism/resource ('from a template in the Templates folder'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is clearly distinguished from generic write/append tools by the template-focused behavior, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus obsidian_write, obsidian_append, or other siblings. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description. The only usage signal is implicit in the template-based creation wording.

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