bricks_append_elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it automatically creates a backup before writing (cannot be skipped) and advises a theme-first approach. It does not cover all possible edge cases (e.g., invalid page_id), but the disclosed traits are significant and helpful for safe usage.

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 concise at around 120 words, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds unique value (behavior, usage guidance, best practices). No unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's primary function, key behavior (backup), and provides actionable styling guidance. It does not describe return values, but for a mutation tool, this is generally acceptable. The advice is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about using theme tokens for elements, but does not provide further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already defines. It meets the baseline adequately.

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 tool appends elements to an existing page without replacing content. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from update/replace operations, which sets it apart from sibling tools like bricks_patch_page or bricks_update_page.

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 excellent best-practice guidance, such as calling bricks_get_theme_styles first and using predefined tokens. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare to alternative siblings, only implicitly through the purpose.

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