Patch Note Section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, what happens if the target heading/block/frontmatter field does not exist, or whether changes are in-place and irreversible. Only the high-level action is described.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary operations and target types. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool. It lacks details on target resolution, error handling, confirmation behavior, and whether it creates missing headings/fields. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with multiple modes.

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 60%, and the description adds meaning to targetType and operation by naming heading/block/frontmatter and insert/prepend/replace. However, it does not clarify how frontmatter values are encoded, how block references are resolved, or the format of heading paths beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool inserts, prepends, or replaces content relative to headings, block references, or frontmatter fields. This precise verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings like obsidian_append and obsidian_create.

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 implies usage by naming operations and target types, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like obsidian_append. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools.

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