opencode_tui_append_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, signaling a state-modifying, non-idempotent operation. The description adds nothing beyond this—it merely restates the append action without noting cumulative effects, side effects, or interaction with the current prompt content. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no extraneous information, exemplifying ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 straightforward append operation with full schema coverage, safe annotations, and a simple purpose, the description is adequate. It communicates the essential action. Minor gaps like usage differentiation are covered under other dimensions, and the tool's simplicity means the description suffices without needing extensive detail.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters: 'text' is required and self-explanatory, and 'directory' explains its optional targeting behavior. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning. Per baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('text to the TUI's prompt input field'), clearly indicating it adds text to the prompt. It distinguishes from siblings like opencode_tui_clear_prompt (which removes) and opencode_tui_submit_prompt (which sends), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for incremental text addition without submission, nor does it contrast with clearing or submitting. An agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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