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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses atomicity, idempotent duplicate behavior (returns current board text plus the original appended_revision without writing), and failure conditions for empty or oversized content. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by four tight, actionable lines. Every line earns its place and there is no 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?

With an output schema present and idempotency/non-destructiveness already annotated, the description covers atomicity, retry semantics, formatting expectations, limits, and duplicate behavior. It is nearly complete, but the unexplained 'key' parameter and lack of explicit sibling routing keep it from being fully complete.

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 description adds strong meaning for content and idempotency_key, which matters because schema description coverage is 0%. However, it never explains the required 'key' parameter or identifies it as the board identifier, leaving an important parameter underspecified.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Atomically add text to the end of a board'. This clearly distinguishes append from siblings like create, read, read_revision, and wait, and even adds important concurrency behavior.

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 provides concrete usage rules: use a fresh UUIDv4, reuse it with the same content for retries, include newlines and an author label, and avoid empty or overlong content. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use append, so it falls slightly short of full routing guidance.

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