append-note

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: HTML content with newline constraint, disk snapshot before modification, failure without altering note when zero/multiple matches, and the resolved scope behavior with folder. This is exceptionally transparent 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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place. The core action leads, followed by constraints, failure semantics, and a practical recommendation. No fluff or 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?

The tool is moderately complex with failure modes and an optional folder scope. The description covers the operation, content constraints, failure conditions, scope resolution, and a usage recommendation. Output schema exists, so return values don't need elaboration. Complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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. It explains `title` requires exact match, `content` must be HTML without newlines, and `folder` acts as a scope limiter (whole app if omitted, otherwise a specific folder). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though a bit more on content format could push it to 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('body of an existing Apple Note') with a clear matching criterion ('exact title'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create-note and update-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?

The description explicitly advises passing `folder` when known and explains the failure mode when zero or multiple notes match. While it doesn't name alternatives directly, the scoping and disambiguation guidance are clear. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with create-note or update-note, but the usage context is well implied.

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