append_to_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key append semantics: existing text is never lost, and content is added after a blank line at the end of the file. It does not cover permissions, error cases, or atomicity, which would be needed for a 5.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by safety and usage guidance, and then a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, usage, safety, and parameter details. It omits only minor context like permissions or failure modes, which is acceptable but not perfect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters well: path is explained as a relative path from the vault root with a concrete example, and content is explained as text appended after a blank line at the end of the file, adding behavior beyond the bare schema types.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Append content to the end of an existing note.' It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling update_note by noting it is safer because existing text is never lost, allowing an agent to select correctly without checking schemas.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('Use for adding progress updates, new findings, or extra sections') and names the alternative update_note as a less safe option. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the alternative and conditions are strongly implied.

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