claude_append_persistence

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the non-obvious safe-mode constraint requiring confirm=true for AGENTS.md, explains placement behavior for section_header, and adds content policy constraints. It omits error/idempotency details, but the output schema covers return expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and requirements, then moves to optional behavior, a conditional constraint, and content policy. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers target files, required vs optional parameters, the conditional confirm flag, and content constraints. Output details are left to the output schema, so nothing critical blocks correct invocation, though usage-vs-alternatives guidance is only implicit.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines file values, marks file and content as required, explains the optional section_header behavior, and explains when confirm matters. This adds substantive meaning beyond the otherwise bare schema.

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 precise verb ('Append'), a clear target resource ('one of the persistence files'), and enumerates the allowed file values ('agents|projects|memory'). The operation is semantically distinct from read/update siblings, and the safe-mode note explicitly connects to update_persistence without blurring the purpose.

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 implies this tool is for adding content to persistence files and gives required/optional fields, but it does not explicitly say when to choose append over update_persistence or read_persistence, nor does it describe conditions for when not to use it. The safe-mode note hints at a related tool but stops short of clear alternative-selection guidance.

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