obsidian_append_to_note

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly discloses that existing note content is never modified, that repeated calls append repeatedly, and that failures return an actionable error string. It also documents the exact success response shape, providing strong behavioral transparency.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core behavior, and the safety note and return contract are useful. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema and incomplete by omitting vault, preventing a top score.

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 essential behavior, side effects, note creation, return format, and failure mode. The only meaningful gap is that the optional vault routing is left to the schema rather than the description, so an agent relying only on this text would miss that option.

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 description lists path and content with basic type info, but it largely repeats what the schema already says and omits the optional vault parameter. The schema itself documents the nested fields well enough, so this is acceptable but not additive.

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 operation: 'Add markdown to the end of a note' and adds the create-if-missing behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous against siblings like write or patch. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Safe by design: nothing already in the note is modified. Repeated calls append repeatedly' phrasing gives clear context for using this as a non-destructive, append-only operation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the implied usage is clear.

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