kb_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that timestamps and reason stamps are auto-inserted and that a pre-revision mirror is recorded (audit side effect), and that existing text is preserved. It omits permission requirements and whether appends are idempotent, but the key side effects are surfaced.

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?

The behavioral contract is front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameters documented compactly below. The Args block is slightly verbose but every line carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema titles.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the side effects (timestamp/reason stamp, revision mirror) that an agent needs before writing. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained; only permission/auth context is arguably missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the three parameters is given meaning beyond its schema title — node_token as the target page, markdown as the content to append, and reason as the rationale written into both the page and the audit ledger. It doesn't note that reason is optional (default empty), which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('在页面末尾追加内容') plus a scope constraint ('不改写原文') that implicitly separates it from kb_replace_text. It doesn't name the sibling tool explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'append without rewriting the original', which tells the agent this is for additive edits rather than replacements. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., kb_replace_text for rewriting) and no when-not conditions or prerequisites are given.

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