append_block_children

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states the append action, implying non-destructive addition, but does not mention required permissions, error conditions, or the effect on existing children. This is a mutation tool, and the description lacks details that would help an agent understand side effects beyond the name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every phrase adds value without redundant detail.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return behavior or edge cases, but it does not. The description is sufficient for basic understanding, but lacks information on what the tool returns or how it handles invalid inputs, leaving it incomplete for full autonomous use.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already explains 'after' as an optional insertion point and 'children' as a list of block objects. Therefore baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Append' and identifies the resource as 'a page or block', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_page or delete_block. It also enumerates content types ('paragraphs, headings, lists, code blocks'), making the purpose concrete.

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 states 'Use this to add paragraphs, headings, lists, code blocks, and more,' which provides clear positive context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should be avoided, such as using create_page for new pages, so it lacks exclusions but the context is sufficient.

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