obsidian_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that Templater placeholders are NOT expanded and routes to the alternative tool. However, it does not mention behavior on file conflicts (e.g., overwrite) or how name and path interact when both are provided, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 well-structured: purpose, key caveat, parameter list, and examples. It is efficient, but the parameter list partially duplicates information already in the schema. The examples earn their place, and there is no superfluous fluff, but a tighter version could omit the redundant parameter details.

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 simplicity of a create tool, the description covers the essential nuance (no placeholder expansion), provides examples, and names the alternative. It does not explain conflict handling or return values, but no output schema exists and the behavior is relatively straightforward. The description is nearly complete for an agent to use correctly, with minor gaps when both name and path are supplied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by adding 'optional' to each parameter and specifying 'vault-relative path' for path, which is more precise than the schema's 'File path'. The examples also demonstrate typical usage, providing practical semantic context beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Create a new PLAIN note (no Templater expansion)', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool obsidian_create_from_template by explicitly naming the alternative for templater placeholders. This clearly differentiates it from other note-related tools.

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 explicitly advises 'if your template contains placeholders, use obsidian_create_from_template instead'. This directly specifies when to use this tool versus the alternative. The word 'PLAIN' further implies using this when literal content is intended, providing clear context.

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