Execute Obsidian Command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces this by stating 'Destructive — the effect depends entirely on what the command does' and adds a verification warning. It also discloses the plugin requirement, the targeting of the live Obsidian vault, and that routing is unaffected by `vault.select`. This adds significant context beyond the annotations with no contradiction.

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 two short paragraphs that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then add relevant contextual warnings. It avoids redundancy with the schema and each sentence contributes either a prerequisite, a caution, or a routing clarification. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., merging the two paragraphs), but it is appropriately sized for a potentially dangerous tool.

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?

Given the tool's high risk (executes arbitrary commands) and the presence of a full schema and output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: how to identify a command, optional arguments, required plugin, destructiveness warning, target scope, and routing behavior. It does not describe error handling, but that is not essential when the description already meets the safety and usage needs for an agent.

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 both parameters are already well-documented. The description enhances this by clarifying that `args` is an optional argument map and that most built-in commands take no arguments (matching the schema's note). More importantly, it tells the agent where to obtain a valid `commandId` (via `commands.list`), which is not in the schema. This added guidance slightly exceeds the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Execute') and a clear resource ('an Obsidian command by its internal id'), and references `commands.list` as the source of ids. It also explicitly notes that `vault.select` does not affect this tool, distinguishing it from filesystem-routing tools. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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?

It mentions a clear prerequisite (Requires the Local REST API plugin) and gives a caution to verify the command id before calling, which guides safe usage. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the reference to `commands.list` implies a natural sequence and the `vault.select` note clarifies when it is not affected. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use, so a 4 is appropriate.

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