mcp-obsidian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but fails to describe critical traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to linked content (e.g., backlinks), or error conditions (e.g., invalid paths). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the parameter explanation could be integrated more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks safety warnings, error handling, or sibling differentiation, leaving room for improvement in context.

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 context for the single parameter 'path' by specifying it as a 'Relative path to the note or folder to delete,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could detail path format or examples.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a note or folder from the vault'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_note' or 'write_note' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential destructive operations, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_note' for relocation or 'update_frontmatter' for modification. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., existence of the note/folder) or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete non-empty folders if applicable), offering minimal usage direction.

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