append_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that with 'heading', the section is created if missing, but does not explain default behavior for missing notes (relies on create_if_missing parameter), error cases, or idempotency. Some behavioral traits are disclosed but gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence clearly states the core action, and the second adds a necessary behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior but omits details about return values, error conditions (invalid path, missing heading), and default behavior when create_if_missing is false. Adequate but leaves gaps for a first-time user.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the heading insertion behavior in prose, including that the section is created if missing, which is more detailed than the schema description for 'heading'. This extra context earns a higher score.

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 'Append text to a note', a specific verb-resource pair. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_note or edit_note, which have different actions. The additional detail about heading sections further clarifies its unique functionality.

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 appending text, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_note or create_note. No guidance on when not to use or conditions like note existence.

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