import_from_obsidian

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states only the basic action, not the semantics of the 'mode' parameter (replace vs. merge), side effects on existing canvas content, or error handling. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it omits necessary details about modes and behavior, so it is more under-specified than optimally concise.

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?

With no annotations and a minimal schema, the description leaves crucial aspects unclear, such as the meaning of 'mode', how the import interacts with existing canvas elements, and potential failure modes. It is inadequate for a tool with this complexity and no structured guidance.

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 0%, and the description does not explain 'filePath' or 'mode'. While the schema's enum values hint at replace/merge, the description adds no context about how these modes affect the import process. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter meaning.

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 specifies the verb 'import', the resource ('diagram from an Obsidian .excalidraw.md file'), and the destination ('onto the canvas'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like export_to_obsidian (reverse direction) and import_scene (presumably a different format or source).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions, differences from import_scene, or contexts where replace vs. merge mode is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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