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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and delivers extensively. It discloses non-idempotency, same auth/events/guards as update_doc, the @-mention firing behavior (only newly-added mentions), the editor role requirement, and multi-surface handling via surface_slug. This goes well beyond a minimal disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then the use case, then details. The markdown feature list is long but each item is specific and relevant to the tool's behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema information.

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 of this complexity, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, use cases, supported markdown features, implementation mechanics, safety guards, non-idempotency, @-mention behavior, auth requirements, and multi-surface handling. No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently covers what the operation does without needing to specify return values.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the markdown 'becomes one or more new blocks at the end' and that surface_slug is for 'multi-surface workspaces' to append to a specific tab. It also enriches the markdown parameter by listing supported markdown features, giving the agent a clearer sense of what can be passed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+location: 'Append a chunk of Markdown to the END of a workspace's doc body.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_doc and update_doc_section, which modify rather than append. The mention of 'changelog updates, daily standups, batch summaries' further contextualizes its intended use.

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?

States it is 'Designed for crons + ingest agents that produce content in timestamped chunks,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It references the 'same markdown surface as update_doc' and warns that 'Append is non-idempotent by design,' implying when not to use it (e.g., when idempotency is required). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for other use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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