Add text at the end of a note (creates it if missing). Never conflicts: prefer it to write_file for additions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| workspace | No | Usually OMIT: the path finds its brain. Pass it only when a reply asks (new or ambiguous branch), with the brain the user named (if unclear ASK): id, 'mine', or owner name/email. A brain where the branch does not exist is refused. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workspace / descriptionPrevious value: -"Brain to act on: its id, «mio» (yours), or the owner's name/email as shown by search. Usually OMIT it: a path that already lives in one brain is found there, for reads and writes alike. Pass it only when the tool tells you to (a NEW branch, or one that exists in several brains) — with the brain the user named; when they were not explicit ASK THEM. A brain where the branch does not exist is refused even if you name it."New value: +"Usually OMIT: the path finds its brain. Pass it only when a reply asks (new or ambiguous branch), with the brain the user named (if unclear ASK): id, 'mine', or owner name/email. A brain where the branch does not exist is refused."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful create-if-missing behavior, but does not explain what happens on conflict beyond the marketing-style claim 'Never conflicts', which is vague rather than informative.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and create-if-missing behavior, followed by the routing hint. 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?
For a simple two-required-param mutation, the description covers purpose and routing but omits path format conventions and any hint on workspace behavior that the schema itself documents at length. Adequate but incomplete for an unfamiliar 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 33%, so the schema leaves gaps. The description says nothing about 'path' or 'content' (both required), and the schema's workspace guidance is rich but the description does not reinforce or clarify the append target format. Baseline 3 given partial coverage, but it does not compensate for the two undocumented required params.
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+resource ('Add text at the end of a note') and even adds the create-if-missing behavior, distinguishing it from write_file by name.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'prefer it to write_file for additions.' This is a direct when-to-use-vs-alternative statement naming a sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.