Obsidian MCP Server

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 states the tool updates content but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if the section doesn't exist), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for this level of detail.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error conditions, and what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially compared to siblings that might offer similar functionality.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Update') and target ('a specific section of a note by heading'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'append_to_note' or 'write_note', which likely also modify note content. The specificity about updating by section heading is helpful but not sufficient for full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'append_to_note', 'write_note', and 'create_note' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for partial updates, full replacements, or specific use cases. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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