Patch note under heading

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 states the operation ('insert') but does not disclose what happens if the heading or note does not exist, whether the insertion is destructive, or what side effects occur. For a mutating tool, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 a single sentence with zero filler, and the core action and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are documented in the schema.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the distinction from update_note, the expected return value, or failure behavior when the heading is missing. Schema coverage helps, but an agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior and selection context from this definition alone.

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 tool description adds no parameter-level meaning; the schema already covers path, content, and heading with 75% coverage. The one undocumented parameter, operation, is reasonably self-explanatory via its enum values (append/prepend/replace), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert') and names a specific resource ('content relative to an existing heading in a note'), which clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_note and search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from update_note, which is the most likely sibling to confuse it with.

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 intended use is implied: insert content under an existing heading. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer patch_note over update_note, nor any exclusions or conditions such as 'heading must already exist.' The core use case is inferable, but alternatives are not addressed.

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