prepend_to_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation, what happens if the note doesn't exist, whether existing content is preserved, or any permission requirements. The only behavioral detail is 'after frontmatter', which is useful but insufficient for a destructive/modifying tool.

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 description is two sentences and immediately states the core action and placement. The use cases are illustrative without being verbose. Every word earns its place, making this concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary action but omits important operational context such as failure behavior (missing file, permissions), whether newlines are handled by default, and any side effects. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete for safe autonomous invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, though it clarifies the purpose of 'content' (prepending at the top) and mentions the frontmatter interaction. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy cases but does not go beyond.

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 clearly states the action ('prepend content to the beginning of a note'), specifies the resource (note), and provides context ('after frontmatter'). It also gives concrete use cases (headers, timestamps, notices) and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like append_to_note by emphasizing 'beginning'.

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 phrase 'to the beginning' and 'after frontmatter' establishes clear placement context, distinguishing it from append_to_note and insert_under_heading. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top examples that provide explicit when/when-not guidance.

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