obsidian_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the important side effect of auto-committing and pushing to git, which is non-obvious and critical for an agent to know. It also explicitly states 'overwrite', signaling destructive behavior, though it doesn't elaborate on failure or conflict handling.

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 only two sentences, with the primary action stated first and the important git side effect stated second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and the key behavioral consequence (git auto-commit and push). It could mention details like whether directories are created or what happens on failure, but these are not essential for correctly invoking the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters: path is a relative path and content is full markdown content. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating the note is written to the vault, so a baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Create or overwrite') and resource ('a note in the vault'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. It also differentiates from siblings like obsidian_read and obsidian_append by explicitly covering both creation and full overwrite semantics.

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 when to use this tool: when a note should be created or completely replaced, rather than appended or modified. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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