Sync Health to Obsidian

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

The description discloses that the tool writes to files (export/refresh), specifies the output paths and frontmatter fields, explains incremental vs full sync behavior, and notes the requirement of OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH. This adds significant value beyond the annotations, which only indicate not read-only and not destructive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently covers the mechanism, optional full sync, and prerequisites. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameters well. However, it does not mention the return value or behavior on error, which could be useful since no output schema is provided. Overall, it is mostly complete for usage.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context by explaining the default behavior of incremental sync and the role of full_sync, and implies the relationship between days and start_date. This adds marginal value beyond the 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 exports daily health summaries to Obsidian as per-day markdown notes and refreshes a dashboard. It uses specific verbs (export, refresh) and resources (per-day notes, dashboard), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on data retrieval or connection status.

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 explains the default incremental behavior and how to trigger a full sync, and mentions the required environment variable. It provides clear context for usage but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the context from sibling tools makes it distinct.

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