Execute Obsidian Command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds context: the effect depends entirely on the command, reinforcing the need for verification. It also explains the tool targets the vault via Local REST API and is unaffected by `vault.select`, which is useful behavioral detail 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 two paragraphs, front-loading purpose and key warnings. Every sentence adds value: first explains execution and args, second clarifies targeting and routing interaction. No fluff.

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 tool's complexity (executing arbitrary commands with potential side effects), the description covers all essential aspects: how to get command ids, prerequisites, optional args, destructive warning, and interaction with other tools. An output schema exists, so missing return value info is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: it explains `commandId` is an internal id from `commands.list`, and `args` is an optional map most commands ignore. This supplements the schema's description of `commandId` (minLength, example) and `args` (object type).

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 states the tool executes an Obsidian command by its internal id, referencing `commands.list` for id retrieval. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is not affected by `vault.select`, which changes filesystem-tool routing.

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 explicitly tells the agent to get command ids from `commands.list`, warns about destructive nature with 'verify the command id before calling', and clarifies that `args` is optional and most commands take no arguments. It also states the prerequisite: 'Requires the Local REST API plugin.'

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