append_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully handles transparency. It explains that markdown is converted to native Notion blocks (not plain text), that the server handles API limits like batching and splitting, and returns a structured object with success and blocks_added. This is comprehensive for a mutation 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 a single dense paragraph that efficiently communicates the core action, then the automatic handling of limits, reference to syntax guide, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, the description provides the return format. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and parameter semantics. The context signals show it fits among related tools, and the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with simple descriptions for both parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining how the markdown parameter is processed (automatic handling of limits) and references a syntax guide for supported markdown features. For page_id, no extra semantics are added, but the overall parameter understanding is enhanced.

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 appends markdown content to an existing page. It is specific about the action ('append') and the resource ('existing page'). The description also distinguishes it from creating new pages by referencing create_page's syntax, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says callers can append large documents in one call without pre-chunking, which tells when to use this tool. It also references create_page's syntax guide but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings. However, the context signals list many sibling tools, and the description implies this is for appending to existing pages.

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