Append content to an existing esa post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: content is saved as a new revision (so it is recoverable via rollback) and the optional wip flag changes WIP state. It does not state auth/permission requirements, but the revision disclosure is substantive added value.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it does first, then how it differs from the alternative, then the optional flag. No padding, every clause carries 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?

For a mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, and side effects adequately; no output schema is needed. Minor gap: it never mentions teamName, which the schema itself flags as required despite not being in the required list.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including boundary/indentation rules and wip defaults are already documented. The description only re-states the optional wip behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (appends) plus resource and target location (end of an existing post's body), and names the side effect (new revision). An agent can distinguish it from esa_update_post and esa_prepend_post without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with esa_update_post ('does not require fetching the current body first') and gives concrete use cases (log entries, meeting notes). The append-to-end framing also separates it from the sibling prepend operation.

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