mcp-obsidian-planner

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 mentions actions like moving and deleting, which imply mutation/destructive operations, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with potentially destructive actions (like delete) and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Process an inbox item') and lists all key destinations. There's zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and destinations well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, side effects) and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (lineNumber, destination, targetPath) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning destinations like 'project, daily note, area, archive, or delete', which aligns with the enum but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'process' and resource 'inbox item' with specific actions (moving to various destinations or deleting). It distinguishes from siblings like inbox_add, inbox_list, and inbox_prioritize by focusing on processing rather than adding, listing, or prioritizing items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from task_toggle or other task-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 context by listing possible destinations (project, daily note, area, archive, delete), suggesting this tool is for managing inbox items after they've been added. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like inbox_prioritize or task_add, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing inbox item). This provides some guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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