context_append

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: entries may be read back later without surrounding conversation, and pinned entries survive compaction. It does not cover output behavior or other side effects, but the key memory-semantics are disclosed.

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 four sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each remaining sentence adds essential guidance about cadence, self-containment, and pinning.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and behavioral nuances. Minor missing context is explicit routing away from context_update, but the schema handles parameter details adequately.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining that text must stand alone and that pinned entries are protected from compaction, both of which clarify how to use the corresponding 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Record something worth remembering into the session.' It clearly communicates an append/write behavior and is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like context_recall, context_compact, and context_update.

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 concrete triggers for use — 'after discovering a fact, making a decision, or hitting a dead end' — and explains the intent of recording incrementally. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the alternative for updating existing entries, such as context_update.

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