Append Capacities daily note

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

Critically discloses that the API queues the write asynchronously, so success means accepted/queued rather than immediately readable. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, which do not mention async semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and zero wasted words. The async caveat is essential and placed immediately after the purpose.

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 intricate block schema and the presence of an output schema, the description plus schema cover the essentials well. A slight gap is not explicitly pointing to the markdown sibling alternative, but the tool name and description make the structural purpose clear enough.

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%, so parameters are already fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds only that blocks should be structural API 2.0 blocks and date defaults to today, but does not elaborate on parameter formatting beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('daily note') with the qualifier 'structural API 2.0 blocks', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling append_daily_note_markdown. It also specifies the date targeting (today's or a specified note).

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 clear context that this is for structural block appends and mentions the async behavior, which guides usage expectations. It does not explicitly name alternates like append_daily_note_markdown or state when not to use this tool, but the name and context make the intended use clear.

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