append_to_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the core behavior (append to end) but does not disclose edge cases like behavior with missing notes (createIfMissing) or newline handling. These are left to the schema, and the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation.

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 concise sentences with the action front-loaded and use cases following. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 operation, the description covers the main purpose and gives usage examples. There is no output schema, but the tool is a straightforward mutation; given the schema's coverage of parameters, the description is sufficiently 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already documents, so it neither adds nor detracts from parameter meaning.

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 the specific verb 'append' with a clear target ('to the end of an existing note'), which distinguishes it from siblings like prepend_to_note and insert_under_heading. The use cases further clarify scope.

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 explains that it is useful for adding sections, logging entries, or updating lists, giving clear contexts for use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the differentiation is implicit.

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