notes_append

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

The description clarifies the additive nature explicitly ('Appending only ever adds'), which aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=false). It adds the detail of UTC-timestamping, which is not captured in annotations or schema, and explains that appending preserves the note's id/slug/place, preventing fragmentation. This behavioral context is valuable given the annotations only provide basic hints.

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 concise yet thorough: it states the action, provides usage context, distinguishes from related tools, and explains how to obtain the required parameter. Every sentence is informative, and the structure logically flows from purpose to guidance to parameter sourcing.

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 append operation with two parameters, the description covers the core behavior, usage guidelines, and parameter context. It does not mention return value or error handling, but given the lack of output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, these omissions are acceptable. The description is comprehensive enough to enable correct tool selection and invocation.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context for the id parameter by explaining its source (notes_create, briefings, plan compositions, notes_read), which helps the agent construct a valid call. For the body parameter, no additional detail is provided, but the schema description is sufficient. Overall, the description enhances understanding of parameter semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Append a UTC-timestamped line to an existing note's body, by id.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools notes_update and notes_create, preempting confusion.

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?

The description explicitly states appropriate usage scenarios and directly compares with notes_update (for correction/restructuring) and notes_create (for new artifacts). It also explains where to obtain the required id parameter, providing comprehensive usage guidelines.

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