Append to note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the create-if-absent behavior and implies mutation through 'Append'. It could add details about permissions or side effects, but the key behavioral trait is communicated.

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 wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important behavioral nuance and a usage directive.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context. It does not explicitly mention return values or error cases, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the note parameter results in creation if absent, and by framing content as suitable for running logs. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('to the end of a note'), and clearly states the create-if-absent behavior. It also distinguishes itself from the alternative of rewriting the whole note, aligning with sibling tool write_note.

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?

'Use this for running logs instead of rewriting the whole note' provides explicit context for when to use this tool and an exclusion against a rewrite approach. It does not name the exact sibling tool, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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