obsidian_property_set

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It only states 'Set' without clarifying behavioral implications like whether the property is created if nonexistent, whether existing values are overwritten, or whether the file must have frontmatter. The agent cannot anticipate side effects.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it omits critical context. It strikes a poor balance between brevity and informativeness.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete. It does not explain whether file or path is required, how the property type affects behavior, or what happens on success/failure. The agent is left with significant unknowns.

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% with reasonable descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but also does not need to compensate.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('a property on a file'), differentiating it from read-oriented siblings like obsidian_properties. However, it does not specify which property system (e.g., frontmatter, metadata), which reduces specificity slightly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obsidian_properties (likely for reading) or obsidian_append (for modifying content). The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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