obsidian_upsert_note

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, so the description adds the merging behavior of frontmatter. However, it does not disclose whether content is fully replaced or merged, nor the impact on existing metadata like tags. With moderate annotation coverage, the description adds some value but not deep behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, concise and direct. Every word adds value: 'Create or replace a note' captures the action, 'Can merge supplied frontmatter with existing frontmatter' provides a key detail. No superfluous information.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools. The description does not mention return values, success/failure indicators, side effects, or constraints like file size limits. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent without sufficient context for reliable 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 60%, and the description mentions frontmatter merging, which relates to the frontmatter and mergeFrontmatter parameters. However, it does not explain the content parameter (missing schema description) or provide syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 tool creates or replaces a note and can merge frontmatter, which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like obsidian_create_note or obsidian_patch_note, missing an opportunity to clarify its unique role.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obsidian_create_note for pure creation or obsidian_patch_note for updates. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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