append_content

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that it appends (additive) and supports the same syntax as 'create_page'. It references a full syntax guide. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or limitations like maximum content length.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key additional information.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the action and provides a syntax reference. While it lacks return value information, that is not critical given the operation's nature and absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by stating the markdown parameter supports the same syntax as 'create_page' and points to a resource for the full syntax guide, which aids the agent in formatting the markdown correctly.

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 markdown content to an existing page'), using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'create_page' and 'replace_content' by specifying it appends to an existing page.

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 markdown to an existing page, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replace_content' or 'update_page'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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