obsidian_write_note

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses overwriting and appending behavior, but lacks details on destructive nature (irreversibility), error scenarios, and return format ('Success message or error' is vague).

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 structured with 'Args:' and 'Returns:', is relatively short, and avoids redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by removing the 'Args' label or integrating into prose.

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 all parameters and mentions return type, but lacks error handling details and edge cases (e.g., invalid vault, note existence). With an output schema present, return info is less critical, but overall completeness is average.

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's explanations of vault, path, content, and append add crucial meaning beyond the schema. However, it omits specifics like vault path format or path restrictions.

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 or overwrite an existing one') and identifies the resource (notes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like obsidian_append_note, but does not explicitly differentiate from obsidian_create_note or note creation in the app.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_create_note or obsidian_append_note. Usage context is only implicit through the parameter descriptions.

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