obsidian_remove_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that a revision check occurs, but does not state what happens on revision mismatch, whether removal is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what response to expect after a mutation.

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 wasted words. It conveys the core action immediately and adds the revision-check qualifier without unnecessary explanation.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits error behavior, confirmation semantics, reversibility, and any operational context an agent needs before deleting frontmatter data.

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. 'Note' loosely implies the path parameter and 'frontmatter property' loosely implies the name parameter, but no formats, constraints, or detailed meaning are given. The revision check hints at expectedRevision but remains vague.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Removes a frontmatter property from a note.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as obsidian_set_property and obsidian_get_property. The added 'with revision check' further narrows its behavior.

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?

Provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_set_property or obsidian_update_note. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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