Append Markdown to Capacities object

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that Markdown conversion is lossy for specific formatting elements and instructs to inspect lossReport. This is critical behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 only two sentences long, with the first sentence stating purpose and alternative, and the second stating the lossy caveat and needed action. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 detailed schema with 100% parameter coverage, an output schema, and annotations indicating a mutating operation, the description covers the essential contextual points: what the tool does, when to prefer an alternative, and what behavioral caveat to expect. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 'Explicitly append Markdown to an existing object' with a specific verb, resource, and content format. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool append_content by positioning it as the Markdown-specific alternative.

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 'Use append_content for the preferred structural JSON-block workflow,' providing a clear alternative. It also warns about lossy conversion for exact underline styling, toggle details, Grid layout, and HTML background colors, indicating when this tool may not be suitable.

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