Execute Obsidian Command

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate danger. But the description adds only a cautionary note about explicit user request, which is more about usage. It doesn't detail what commands might do, what side effects occur, or whether the execution is reversible. Given the annotation, the bar is lower, but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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?

Two short sentences, immediately stating the action and restriction. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema). However, the description does not state what happens after execution (e.g., returned output, success/failure). Given destructiveHint, more cautionary context about possible side effects would strengthen completeness. It is minimally adequate but lacks return-value and consequence information.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already fully described. The description repeats 'by id' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's example and format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 purpose is clear: 'Execute an Obsidian command by id' uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (Obsidian command) with the key parameter (id). It also stands apart from sibling tool 'obsidian_commands_list' by implying action rather than listing. The description precisely names the operation.

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 explicit guidance: 'Only use when the user explicitly asks for it.' This clearly states a usage restriction (when-not). However, it does not mention alternatives or when to prefer other tools like obsidian_commands_list to obtain command IDs, so it misses the 'alternatives' component of a 5.

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