vault_append

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the tool is read-only (resolves path, does not modify), returns relative and absolute paths, and that vault_root/chroma_path are optional. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but these are not relevant for a resolver 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, workflow, guardrail, return info), but it is verbose and contains some repetition (e.g., the workflow is described twice). A tighter version could be more efficient.

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?

Given the tool is a coordinator that resolves a path for appending, the description covers all necessary context: the workflow, interaction with sibling tools (vault_read, vault_append), fallback path logic, and environment variable defaults. No gaps remain for correct agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is the annotation text for semantic search, and that 'vault_root' and 'chroma_path' are optional (omit to use env vars). This adds meaning, but lacks details on query format or value constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the most relevant vault note... and return its path' for appending. It distinguishes this from the actual append tool. However, the tool name 'vault_append' is misleading because the tool itself does not append, which may cause initial 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use examples ('add a note', 'mark TODO as resolved'), a detailed 3-step workflow, and a guardrail against using vault_write. This gives the agent clear context and exclusions for correct usage.

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