obsidian_create_note_in_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the URI scheme but does not explain whether Obsidian needs to be running, if the call is synchronous, or what side effects (e.g., focusing the app) occur. The 'silent' parameter hints at some behavior but overall transparency is limited.

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 very short and efficiently structured: purpose, parameter list, return info. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. Could be slightly improved by adding usage context, but remains concise.

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 presence of an output schema (implied) and the complexity of creating notes via URI, the description lacks crucial context. It does not mention note uniqueness handling, subfolder support, or differentiation from similar tools. The description feels incomplete for practical use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists all parameters and clarifies 'silent' as not opening the note, and 'content' as optional. However, it does not specify valid vault formats, name constraints, or encoding rules for the URI. Adds some value but not enough for full understanding.

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 action ('Create a new note') and the mechanism ('using Obsidian's URI scheme'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the URI method, but does not explicitly contrast with obsidian_create_note or obsidian_write_note.

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 its siblings (e.g., obsidian_create_note, obsidian_write_note). No context about prerequisites or typical scenarios is given.

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