mcp-obsidian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions moving or renaming, implying mutation, but fails to detail permissions, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or effects on linked notes (e.g., backlinks). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating usage context more seamlessly.

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 complexity (mutation with 2 params), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral details like safety warnings or integration with sibling tools, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'src' as 'Relative path to the source note or folder' and 'dest' as 'Relative path to the destination (new name/location)', clarifying beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't cover format details like path syntax or validation rules.

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 ('Move or rename') and resource ('a note within the vault'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rename_note' (which doesn't exist) or 'copy_note' (not present). It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 like 'rename' (implied but not explicit) or other file operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'write_note' or 'update_frontmatter', leaving usage unclear.

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