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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the meaningful auto-create-if-missing behavior and append-on-new-line semantics that the annotations do not convey. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens on concurrent appends.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'For logs and running lists' is the only semi-optional line, but it is short and useful for routing.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and an auto-create side effect, the description covers the essential operation but says nothing about failure modes, permission needs, or result confirmation — leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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 60%, with note, agent, and workspace documented in the schema itself. The description explains what 'text' and 'path' imply only indirectly and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema — the baseline level when the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Add text to the end of a page on a new line') plus the upsert nuance ('creating the page if needed'). Clear enough to distinguish from read_page or list_pages, though it never contrasts itself with the closer siblings write_page, edit_page, or change_pages.

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?

'For logs and running lists' hints at the intended scenario but gives no explicit when-to-use conditions or alternatives, which matters given siblings like edit_page, write_page, and change_pages that also modify page content.

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