obsidian_append_daily_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the mutation. It doesn't say whether the daily note is created if missing, whether a nonexistent heading is created or errors out, whether the append is idempotent, or what is returned.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral details are absent.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits fallback behavior for missing notes/headings, return information, and any hint of side effects. The schema covers inputs, but the behavior around the append is undocumented.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the optional vault_path override and heading examples. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (append), resource (daily note), and scope (today's note under a named heading). This distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like obsidian_append_note and obsidian_get_daily_note without the agent needing to open their schemas.

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?

No guidance on when to pick this over obsidian_append_note, obsidian_insert_at_heading, or obsidian_replace_section. Nothing about exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer routing from names alone.

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