obsidian_update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully introduces 'optimistic revision control,' signaling concurrency behavior around expectedRevision, but it does not explain overwrite semantics, whether omitted expectedRevision allows last-write-wins, what permissions are needed, or how conflicts are reported. This is meaningfully better than a bare mutation description but still incomplete for a write operation.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient and every phrase carries some meaning. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but as written it is appropriately concise.

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 three parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits critical context such as overwrite behavior, expectedRevision semantics, error handling, and when to choose this tool over append/prepend/create siblings. The agent is left with major unknowns before invoking a destructive write operation.

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 explain the parameters. It indirectly covers content and expectedRevision through 'note content' and 'optimistic revision control,' but it does not define expectedRevision's format or behavior, and it says nothing about path. The schema names the parameters, but the description adds little semantic clarity beyond those names.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Updates note content.' It also names a specific mechanism, 'optimistic revision control,' which helps distinguish it from sibling read operations and append/prepend tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like obsidian_append_note or obsidian_create_note, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that this is for replacing note content rather than appending or creating a note. There is no explicit instruction about when this tool is appropriate versus other write tools.

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