mcp-obsidian

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using a template if available, which adds some context, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this overwrites existing notes, what permissions are needed, what the output contains, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential parameter details in a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error handling) to be fully complete.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter: it explains that 'date_str' is a date in YYYY-MM-DD format and defaults to today. With 0% schema description coverage (schema only shows type and default), this fully compensates by providing format and default behavior, making the parameter well-understood.

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's purpose: 'Create a daily note for a given date, using a daily template if available.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('daily note'), and key behavior ('using a daily template if available'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'write_note' or 'get_daily_note', which would require a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple note-related siblings like 'write_note', 'get_daily_note', and 'append_to_note', there's no indication of when this specific creation tool is preferred, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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