obsidian_switch_vault

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

The description discloses session-only behavior, that nothing in any vault is modified, that Obsidian's own open vault is unaffected, and it documents both success and failure return shapes. These are meaningful traits beyond the annotations, and no annotation conflict exists.

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 core statement is first, followed by targeted scope and usage guidance, then a compact Args/Returns block. No filler; the length is appropriate for the behavioral and precedence information it carries.

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 single-parameter, session-state tool, the definition covers every decision an agent needs: what it does, when to switch vs. pass vault directly, precedence, session scope, and the exact success/error response shape.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the description's Args section gives its meaning. Although the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, the embedded schema itself includes a description for the vault parameter, and the description's failure output tells the agent how to discover valid vault names when a bad one is supplied.

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 precise action and scope: 'Change which vault subsequent unqualified tool calls target.' This makes clear it is a session-level router rather than a note or vault content operation, and it is easily distinguished from the note-reading/writing siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool vs. the alternative: prefer passing `vault` directly for one-off access and switch only for a long stretch in one vault. Also states precedence: an explicit `vault` argument always overrides the switched value.

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