iyke_scratchpad_append

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: appending without overwriting, creating if missing, and the with_separator parameter inserting a rule+timestamp. However, it does not detail what happens during creation (e.g., initial state) or any idempotency aspects.

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 extraneous information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains a key parameter. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary operation and the with_separator behavior but omits explanation of the scope parameter. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains with_separator, leaving body, name, and scope completely undocumented. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use those parameters.

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 tool appends to a scratchpad without overwriting, and creates it if missing. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool iyke_scratchpad_write by emphasizing 'without overwriting', making the purpose specific and differentiating.

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 adding content without replacing existing content but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like iyke_scratchpad_write or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. The context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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