append_to_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and meets it: it explains the no-resend behavior, the inserted blank-line separator, and the background re-embed side effect. These are concrete behavioral traits beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three tight sentences cover purpose, preference over an alternative, formatting behavior, and side effects. No repetition of schema details and no filler.

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?

The description plus schema covers the main decision (append vs update), target resolution (id/title/section), placement semantics (at), and the side-effect profile. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but for a no-output-schema append operation that gap is minor. Overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 60% and the tool description adds no direct parameter semantics beyond referring generally to 'your text'. The schema already documents at, title, section and content constraints, so the description provides no extra parameter-level value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Add text to a note without resending the rest,' a specific verb-resource pair, and explicitly contrasts it with update_note. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools.

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 to prefer this tool over update_note for journals, logs and running lists, naming both the alternative and the usage context. This is direct when-to-use guidance the agent does not have to infer.

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