Append to memory note

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the operation is confined to DATACRON_WRITE_PATHS, stores content-addressed history, writes atomically, and relies on human-in-the-loop approval. This provides critical safety and side-effect context not captured by the schema or 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?

Three sentences only, with no fluff. The first sentence gives usage guidance, the second describes the action, and the third explains behavioral guarantees. 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?

Covers path restrictions, atomicity, history, and approval, which is substantial for an append operation. Excludes explanation of expected_hash or error handling, but the presence of an output schema relieves some burden.

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 coverage, the description must compensate. It maps 'existing memory note' to rel_path, 'heading' to heading, and 'Markdown entry' to entry, but does not explain expected_hash. Partial compensation, but not full parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states 'Append a Markdown entry under a heading in an existing memory note' – providing a specific verb, resource, and structural detail. Distinguishes from creating a duplicate note, aligning with sibling alternatives like create_note_ai.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when new information extends a topic that already has a note, instead of creating a duplicate,' offering clear context and an explicit alternative. It stops short of naming sibling tools like patch_note_section or create_note_ai, but the guidance is unambiguous.

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