add_to_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that content is appended or prepended and how position and inline affect the result. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the note must exist) or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 (3 lines) and front-loaded with the main action. It uses clear formatting for parameter details. No unnecessary words, but the omission of file/path is a content issue, not structural.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and lack of annotations, the description should compensate more. It covers the core action but fails to address the file and path parameters, which are essential for usage. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need to clarify inputs.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for content, position, and inline, but completely omits file and path, which are crucial for identifying the note. This leaves significant ambiguity about how to specify the target note.

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's action: 'Append or prepend content to an existing note.' It uses specific verbs and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like create_note (which creates a new note) or read_note (which reads content).

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 explains the primary use case (modifying an existing note by adding content) and details parameters like position and inline. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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