obsidian_daily_append

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 only says 'append content' without explaining side effects (e.g., does it create the note if missing?), behavior of the 'inline' parameter beyond schema, or any permissions needed. The description is too terse for a mutation tool.

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 very short (6 words) but misses opportunity to add crucial context without much text. It is concise but at the expense of completeness; a slightly longer description with key usage hints would improve structure.

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 (2 params, no output schema), but the description fails to clarify what constitutes 'the daily note' (e.g., date-based, configurable) or how it differs from 'obsidian_append'. Contextual information is minimal, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what 'content' format is expected, or when 'inline' is appropriate). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 content') and the target resource ('the daily note'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'obsidian_append' which appends to the current note. The verb-noun pair is specific and 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'obsidian_append' or 'obsidian_prepend'. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., whether the daily note must exist), or when not to use it.

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