Append to Agent Prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context about what is being modified (SOUL.MD, evolving identity/private notes) and who can call it (operator or the agent itself via ai-service). It doesn't disclose details like whether the append is atomic, how large the fragment can be, or what the response looks like, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Append a fragment to an Agent's SOUL.MD'). The second sentence adds relevant context about who can call it and the prerequisite. No wasted words, though the parenthetical '(its evolving identity / private notes)' is slightly redundant with 'SOUL.MD' but still useful for clarity.

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 append operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is being modified, who can call it, and where to get the required identifier. It doesn't explain the return value or error cases, but given the simplicity of the tool and the annotations covering the mutation profile, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 only 33% (only `agentId` has a description). The description itself doesn't explain the parameters beyond the schema. However, the schema is fairly self-explanatory: `append` is the fragment to append, and `agentId`/`agentIdOrAddress` are aliases for the same identifier. The description's mention of 'agent id or address' adds a little context, but it doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented `append` and `agentIdOrAddress` parameters.

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 the action ('Append a fragment to an Agent's SOUL.MD') and identifies the resource (an Agent's evolving identity/private notes). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `ethora-agent-soul-set` by using 'append' vs. the sibling's 'set', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The mention of operator-driven vs. self-edit adds useful context.

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 provides clear context: it's for appending to an Agent's SOUL.MD, and it notes that the Agent itself can self-edit via the same endpoint when called by ai-service. It also states a prerequisite: requires an agent id or address from `ethora-agents-list-v2` or `ethora-agents-create-v2`. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., when to use `ethora-agent-soul-set` instead), but the append-vs-set distinction is implied.

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