append_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the content is appended or prepended and that existing content is not replaced, which is the core side effect. It also mentions 'existing note,' implying the tool does not create new notes. However, it does not cover failure scenarios or permission requirements, which are common for mutation tools.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the most important constraint ('without replacing it') immediately. Every word contributes.

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 tool with no output schema and a fully described schema, the description plus schema provides all essential information: what to pass (path, content, mode), the operation (append/prepend), and the behavioral guarantee (no replacement). Missing are explicit error handling or note-existence checks, but the word 'existing' partially addresses this.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by clarifying that content is 'markdown' and emphasizing the append/prepend modes. It also corrects a subtle inconsistency: the schema's content description says 'appendix at the end,' but the mode can be prepend; the description clarifies this behavior.

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 a specific verb ('Append (or prepend)') and resource ('markdown content to an existing note'), and adds the key constraint 'without replacing it,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_note or create_note. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 when to use it: add content to an existing note rather than replacing it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The phrase 'existing note' hints that create_note is not suitable, and 'without replacing' contrasts with update_note, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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