Append to Daily Note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that it appends (not overwrites) and creates the note if missing, which are the key behavioral traits. It does not mention return values, permissions, or edge cases, but for a simple append operation, these disclosures are adequate and add value beyond the schema.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, the target resource, and a key edge case (creates if missing). Every part earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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 very simple (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the core functionality and the main conditional behavior. Minor gaps exist, such as not mentioning timezone handling for 'today' or the return value, but these are not critical for basic usage. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter ('content') with the same wording as the tool description ('Markdown to append to today's daily note'). The description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Append markdown') and the specific resource ('today's daily note'), plus the notable behavior of creating the note if missing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_append, which likely targets arbitrary notes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'today's daily note' and the create-if-missing behavior, implying it is the tool for append-to-daily-note tasks. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., obsidian_append for other notes) or include when-not-to-use language, so it stops short of a 5.

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