obsidian_create_from_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the key behavior of expanding Templater placeholders and mentions the underlying CLI verb. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases like whether existing files are overwritten, what happens if the template path is invalid, or if parent directories are auto-created. Some behavioral context is added, but not exhaustive.

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: opening purpose sentence, a brief explanation of when to use it, a parameters section, and examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure makes it easy to scan. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description fully covers usage context: what it does, when to use it, why it exists (placeholder expansion), differentiation from an alternative, and concrete invocations. The agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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% with both parameters described in the schema. The description repeats the parameter definitions and adds concrete examples (e.g., 'Templates/daily.md'). The examples are illustrative but do not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new note from a Templater template, expanding placeholders.' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling `obsidian_create` by stating that plain notes without placeholder expansion should use `obsidian_create`. This fully differentiates it from nearby 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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this whenever the template contains Templater placeholders such as `<% tp.date.now() %>`...' and then names the alternative for plain notes: 'For plain notes with no placeholder expansion, use `obsidian_create`.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a specific alternative.

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