append_to_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fuzzy filename matching behavior and the append operation (non-destructive). However, it does not mention what happens if the file is not found, multiple matches, or whether the note is automatically created (it says 'existing vault note', implying it must exist).

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the basics. It could be more complete by specifying that the note must already exist, how fuzzy matching works, or error handling. But given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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 adequate descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about fuzzy matching for the 'file' parameter, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema for 'content'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('existing vault note'), and the method ('fuzzy filename match'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'edit_section' by noting that no heading is needed, 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 provides a clear comparison to 'edit_section' ('Simpler than edit_section — no heading needed'), guiding when to use this tool over the sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites like the note must already exist.

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