files_append_to_config_file

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

The description discloses the 'append' behavior but does not mention error handling, YAML validation (despite a validate_yaml parameter), or whether it creates backups. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action and an example. It is efficient but lacks some parameter details, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 0% schema description coverage, missing annotations, and 3 parameters, the description does not adequately cover parameter semantics or behavioral details (e.g., output, error cases). It is incomplete for agent use.

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 schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the description must explain them. It only mentions 'content' implicitly via the example, but does not clarify 'relative_path' or 'validate_yaml' meaning. This is insufficient.

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 content to an existing config file') and provides a concrete example ('adding an automation entry to automations.yaml'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like files_write_config_file (overwrite) and files_read_config_file.

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 implies usage for adding content to existing files, not creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as files_write_config_file for new files.

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