Append Semantic Section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the operation type but does not mention side effects (e.g., ordering, idempotency, whether existing sections with the same title are affected), required permissions, or how blocks are composed. Significant gaps remain.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise (e.g., mentioning required parameters). Still, it avoids verbosity.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits details on section ordering, handling of duplicate headings, return value, and interaction with existing document structure. The agent would lack critical context to use the tool correctly.

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 provides descriptions for 5 out of 7 parameters (71% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it only restates the general idea. For the two undocumented parameters (workspaceId, docId), no clarification is offered, but coverage is high enough to keep the score at 3.

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 action (append), the resource (semantic section to an existing AFFiNE document), and the method (by heading title and native block composition). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like append_block or create_semantic_page, the concept of 'semantic section' is distinct enough to convey the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., append_block, create_semantic_page). There are no prerequisites, context of use, or when-not-to-use instructions. The description is purely functional without any comparative or contextual advice.

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