obsidian_set_property

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and mentions YAML parsing but does not reveal whether existing values are overwritten, what errors occur, or any side effects. The description is too sparse 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 short and organized into Args, Returns sections. It is efficient but could be even tighter by removing the 'Returns' line, which adds minimal value. Still, it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 over 40 sibling tools and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It omits details on return structure, error handling, overwrite behavior, and required permissions. An agent would need to infer too much to use it reliably.

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%, and the description merely lists parameter names with no additional meaning except for 'property_value' being parsed as YAML. For four parameters, this is insufficient to clarify their role or format beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Set a frontmatter property on a note,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_properties' (plural) and 'delete_property', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_properties' or 'delete_property'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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