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. While 'toggle' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid line numbers), or side effects (e.g., updates to task metadata). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('toggle a task') and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the state change details.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects), output format, or integration with sibling tools. While the purpose is clear, the context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that modifies data.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('sourcePath' and 'lineNumber'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('toggle') and the resource ('task'), specifying the exact state change between 'pending [ ]' and 'completed [x]'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'task_add' (which creates tasks) and 'tasks_list' (which lists tasks) by focusing on status modification rather than creation or retrieval.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions (e.g., not for non-task items), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'inbox_process' or 'daily_set_focus' that might handle task status in different contexts. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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