Append to a page

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), so the main behavior is known. The description adds valuable detail: that pieces are joined as sent (no automatic formatting), the practical size limit, and the return value (new length). It does not cover potential edge cases like what happens on failure, but the mutation context is clear.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the action, the intended use case, the chunk size, and the return value in two sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance, with the most critical information (purpose) 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?

For a simple append operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how to use it (chunking), and what the return is. No missing pieces that would cause mis-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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. However, the description does imply that the 'html' parameter should be a well-formed piece and that it will be appended verbatim, which is a mild addition.

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 verb ('append'), the resource ('HTML to the end of a text page'), and the specific purpose (handling large content). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'journal-add-page' (which likely adds a new page) and 'journal-set-page' (which sets content).

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?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool: for content too large for one message, and provides a concrete workflow (create page, then append in pieces of ~40000 characters). It also implies when not to use it (for single, small content, use create/update instead). The 'cut them between tags' instruction gives clear guidance for proper usage.

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