obsidian_append_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'with revision check' gestures at optimistic-concurrency behavior but never states what happens on a revision mismatch, whether the write is atomic, or what the tool returns; the newline behavior of ensureNewline is likewise undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its main caveat are stated immediately. It is under-specified rather than padded.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, this thin one-liner leaves the agent without enough to invoke the tool confidently — especially around revision-check failure behavior and newline handling.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at 'content' and 'revision check' (expectedRevision) but says nothing about path semantics or the ensureNewline default that governs whether a line break is inserted.

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?

Specific verb (appends) plus resource (note) with the qualifier 'existing', which separates it from obsidian_create_note. The verb also implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling obsidian_prepend_note, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Existing note' is the only usage constraint offered, and it is not framed as when-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to choose this over obsidian_update_note, obsidian_prepend_note, or obsidian_create_note.

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