append_to_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the operation is a whole-note rewrite underneath, which is a significant side-effect the agent must know. It also reveals the refusal on attachments/checklists and ties it to update_note's behavior, giving a transparent picture of what happens under the hood.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second explains the critical underlying behavior. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: the rewrite semantics, the refusal condition, and the rationale for the replace_attachments parameter. It does not mention return values or error handling, but given the simplicity of an append operation and the thorough schema explanations, the information is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

The schema covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why the replace_attachments parameter exists—because the operation refuses on attachments/checklists—and clarifies the underlying mechanism. This context aids correct parameter usage, especially for the subtle replace_attachments flag, moving it above baseline.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Add text to the end of a note, keeping what is already there.' This clearly defines the operation and scope, distinguishing it from generic update operations. It also differentiates from the sibling update_note by highlighting the restriction on attachments and checklists, ensuring an agent can select the right tool.

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 gives a clear condition for use (append) and an explicit refusal condition (attachments/checklists). It references update_note as a sibling with similar constraints, implying when append is inappropriate. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating 'use this instead of X when Y,' so it relies on inference rather than direct routing.

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