obsidian_patch_note

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

Annotations (destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted, but the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like in-place modification, atomicity, or error handling. With no idempotentHint, it is unclear whether repeated calls are safe. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and key elements (what is patched, how). Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral hints, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or constraints (e.g., only one element per call). The agent lacks critical context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 33% (only vault/path have descriptions). The description clarifies that targetType can be heading/block/frontmatter and operation can be append/prepend/replace, adding meaning beyond the enum. However, 'content' remains unexplained, and target is not elaborated. The description partially compensates for low 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 identifies the verb 'patch' and the target resource ('one heading, block reference, or frontmatter key'), specifying the allowed operations (append/prepend/replace). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'obsidian_append_to_note' or 'obsidian_replace_in_note' by targeting a specific element within a note.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools (e.g., 'obsidian_replace_in_note') would be more appropriate.

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