obsidian_append_daily_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. 'Revision check' gestures at optimistic concurrency but never says what a mismatch does (error? overwrite?), whether the daily note is created if absent, or whether the append is atomic. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the distinguishing revision behavior come first. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why so much is left unsaid.

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?

A three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs far more than this single clause. The agent cannot tell how to obtain expectedRevision, how date defaults, or what a failed revision check looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely maps to two of three parameters: 'work item or note' hints at content and 'revision check' hints at expectedRevision. The date parameter is never mentioned, and no format, default (today?), or expectedRevision semantics are given.

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 gives a specific verb ('appends') and a specific resource ('the daily note'), plus a distinguishing behavioral detail ('revision check'). It implicitly separates this from the sibling obsidian_append_note (general note) and obsidian_prepend_daily_note, though it never names them.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over obsidian_append_note, obsidian_prepend_daily_note, or obsidian_update_note. The 'revision check' phrase hints at a concurrency-sensitive use case but never explains when that matters or what to do about it.

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