obsidian_set_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 does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: that values are typed ('structured types') and that an optimistic-concurrency guard exists ('revision check'). It stops short of saying what happens on a revision mismatch, whether a missing property is created, or how errors/mutation effects surface.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the two distinguishing features. It is appropriately sized, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It omits revision-mismatch behavior, property-creation semantics, and per-parameter meaning, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would need to call it correctly.

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. The description only loosely gestures at parameters via 'structured types' (value) and 'revision check' (expectedRevision), leaving path and name undocumented and giving no format or constraint detail, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Sets or updates') and resource ('a frontmatter property'), clearly distinguishing it as the write-side counterpart to the get_property/remove_property siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as remove_property or when to prefer updating a whole note. Usage is only weakly implied by the presence of sibling read/remove property tools.

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