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

Annotations declare it is a non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds that it appends at the end and returns the resulting summary, but omits conflict/concurrency behavior (what happens when base_version is stale), permission requirements, and error semantics for a mutation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler, with the append-at-end scope front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and the description covers the return value (the document summary), so the essentials are present. The remaining gap is the concurrency/conflict story around base_version, which an agent would need to call this correctly in a multi-writer setting.

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 100%, so the schema already documents content, document_id, base_version and workspace_id. The description only echoes that content is markdown and that existing content is not resent; it adds no meaning to base_version (optimistic-locking token) or workspace_id resolution.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Agrega contenido ... al FINAL de un documento') plus the key semantic distinction that existing content need not be resent, which implicitly separates it from update_document/patch_document. It never names the alternative tools explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary against append_artifact or patch_document.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'sin reenviar lo que ya tiene' hints this is preferred over a full rewrite, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of append_artifact or patch_document as alternatives in a sibling list full of overlapping document tools.

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