Adds Markdown content to the end of an existing note in Obsidian, enabling note updates without overwriting; embed attachments with ![[filename.png]].
Append content to the end of an existing note. Use ![[filename.png]] to embed attachments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the note | |
| content | Yes | Markdown content to append. Use ![[filename.png]] to embed attachments. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that content lands at the end rather than overwriting. It says nothing about what happens if the note does not exist, whether the write is atomic/reversible, permission requirements, or error behavior 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler, and the embedding hint is a genuinely useful aside rather than padding.
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?
For a low-complexity two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. The gap is the absence of any failure-mode or precondition statement, which matters more here because there are no annotations to cover mutation behavior.
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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, and the description merely echoes the embedding syntax already present in the 'content' schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Append content to the end of an existing note') and the 'existing note' phrasing implies required pre-existence. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like append_to_active_note or patch_note, which target a different note source and a different edit style respectively.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent choosing among append_to_note, append_to_active_note, patch_note, and update_active_note gets no routing signal from the description; it must infer the distinction (explicit path vs active note) from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.