Execute Obsidian Command

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the effect depends on the command, urging verification. It also reveals the plugin dependency and the vault.select limitation, providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise, with only three sentences covering all key points without redundancy. It front-loads the main action and adds necessary caveats efficiently.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, parameters (via schema), destructive nature, plugin requirement, and a nuance about vault.select. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description explains that args is an optional map and that most commands take no arguments, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description supplements it well.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'Obsidian command', and specifies that the commandId is the internal id from commands.list. This distinguishes it from the sibling commands.list tool.

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 provides explicit context: requires the Local REST API plugin, is destructive, and advises to verify the command id. It also clarifies that vault.select does not affect this tool. While it could explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient.

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