append_to_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the append-at-end semantics, which largely duplicate the schema's own parameter text; it says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent path, whether the write is reversible, or permission requirements for a mutation 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though it could have used the remaining space for the behavioral detail it lacks.

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 two-parameter append tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. However, it leaves the not-found case and the mutation's side effects unaddressed, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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% and both parameters ('path' and 'content') are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Adiciona texto ao final de uma nota existente') and scopes it to the Obsidian vault, so the agent can tell it appends rather than overwrites. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the closest sibling, create_or_update_note, so it stops short of 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?

The phrase 'nota existente' implies a precondition (the note must already exist), which is the only usage hint. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_or_update_note, nor what to do if the note is absent.

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