Vault Write Note

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

With annotations already indicating a non-read-only operation, the description adds valuable behavior details: three write modes (create, overwrite, append), fail-if-exists behavior, and path confinement to the vault. It also discloses a configuration requirement. These go beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Write a Markdown note'), then quickly covers modes, path safety, and a requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, modes, path restrictions, and a prerequisite. It does not mention return values or directory creation behavior, but those are not critical for a simple write operation, and no output schema is provided expecting such details.

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 input schema already describes all parameters thoroughly (path is vault-relative, .md is appended, content is Markdown, mode has an enum with explanations). The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Write' and the resource 'Markdown note into the configured Obsidian vault', with concrete examples of use cases. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like vault-read and vault-search by focusing on write operations.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., writing literature notes, evidence tables, research summaries) and mentions a prerequisite (RESEARCH_MCP_OBSIDIAN_VAULT). It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but sibling names make the distinction obvious.

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