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 describes key behaviors: it can create or overwrite notes, automatically creates parent directories, and handles markdown content. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the note already exists beyond 'overwrite'.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's action, and the two parameter lines provide crucial usage details. No wasted words or redundancy.

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), no annotations, and 2 parameters fully explained in the description, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core functionality and parameter usage well, though additional behavioral context (like error handling) would make it more robust 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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides essential semantics for both parameters: 'path' is explained as a relative path with parent directories created automatically, and 'content' is specified as markdown content. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Create or overwrite') and resource ('a note in the vault'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'append_to_note' (which only appends) and 'create_daily_note' (which creates notes with a specific naming convention). The phrase 'Create or overwrite' precisely defines the tool's behavior.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to create new notes or overwrite existing ones. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the distinction from siblings like 'append_to_note' is implied by the 'overwrite' action. No misleading guidance is present.

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