patch_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only lists operation types and says 'existing note'. It does not disclose how multiple operations interact, whether they are applied atomically or in order, failure behavior when the note/heading is missing, frontmatter merge semantics, or any side effects. Some schema descriptions hint at behavior (e.g., replaceSection 'Replace or add'), but the tool description itself remains shallow.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by a complete parenthetical list of supported operations. No filler or redundant information; every word 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description plus schema covers parameter meaning well but leaves out critical behavioral context: whether operations can be combined, execution order, edge-case handling for missing headings or notes, and what the tool returns. It is adequate for a simple single-operation call but incomplete for complex patch scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a lightweight semantic grouping by naming the operations, which helps map natural language to parameters, but it does not explain parameter syntax or nuances beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Perform'), resource ('existing Obsidian note'), and distinguishes this as 'fine-grained updates' rather than full writes. The parenthetical enumerates specific operation types (append, prepend, replace under heading, regex patch, update frontmatter), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools like write_note.

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 implies usage for partial modifications to an existing note through 'fine-grained updates' and the operation list, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over write_note or read_note, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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