Append Markdown to Capacities daily note

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

The description adds critical behavioral details not present in annotations: the API queues writes asynchronously, lossReport is preflight-only, and Markdown conversion is lossy for underline styling, toggle details, Grid layout, and HTML background colors. This goes beyond the basic write indication from readOnlyHint=false.

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 convey the purpose, alternative, async behavior, and lossiness without redundancy. The primary action is stated first, followed by essential caveats, with no fluff.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering basic safety, the description provides all necessary context: the tool's action, when to use the alternative, the async nature, and lossy conversion caveats. No critical gaps are apparent for a write tool of this complexity.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it hints at Markdown formatting limitations that could affect the markdown parameter. This meets the baseline for full 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 'Explicitly append Markdown to a Capacities daily note', a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling append_daily_note by labeling that as the preferred structural JSON-block workflow, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 directs users to append_daily_note for the preferred structural workflow, naming an alternative. This implies this tool is for explicit Markdown writes, giving clear guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tool.

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