obsidian_daily_append

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

The description mentions appending 'at the end of today's daily note' and shows markdown content, providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose whether the note is created if missing, whether it adds newlines, or what happens on failure. The main action is clear, but edge-case behavior is undisclosed.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence purpose, a clean parameter list, and two illustrative examples. No redundant information, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter meaning, and usage through examples. It lacks edge-case information (e.g., missing note behavior) and return value, but these are non-critical for a simple append operation. Overall, it's adequately complete for the simplicity level.

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 the parameter as 'Content to append' (100% coverage), but the description adds 'markdown text' and shows examples with formatting. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema, clarifying expected content type and usage.

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 states 'Append content to today's daily note' with a specific verb ('append') and resource ('today's daily note'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like obsidian_daily_read or obsidian_create. The purpose is unambiguous and precise.

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?

Usage is implied through the verb 'append' and examples, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., obsidian_create for new notes) or what happens if the daily note doesn't exist. The examples show use cases, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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