append_content

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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotence, but the description adds meaningful operational context: retries are safe for 30 days on the same local Ygdria database and expectedVersion can be used. It stops short of explaining failure behavior or what happens after the 30-day idempotency window.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the important idempotency and version constraints. There is no wasted language.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential append, retry, and version-check behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or what the response contains, but the annotations reduce the need for safety disclosure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description helps by explaining that idempotencyKey is required for retry safety, expectedVersion is optional, and text contains Markdown blocks or literal code. However, noteId is only indirectly implied by 'latest note,' and the semantics of expectedVersion remain vague.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Append Markdown blocks') plus the key scope constraint ('without replacing existing content'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling replacement tools like replace_content or replace_section.

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 contrast with replacement behavior gives clear usage context, and the required idempotencyKey signals retry-oriented use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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