Append Markdown

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the useful non-obvious conversion trait that $$...$$ and $...$ become native equations. It says nothing about what 'strict' mode changes, how placement affects the write, or the revision-conflict behavior implied by expectedRevision.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with the equation-conversion note as a compact second clause. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Still, for a 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested placement object and an undocumented 'strict' flag, the description leaves real gaps about positioning and strictness that an agent must guess at.

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 83%, so the schema already documents docId, markdown, workspaceId, and expectedRevision in detail. The description adds only markdown-body syntax behavior, not parameter meaning; the nested placement object and the 'strict' flag remain unexplained by both description and schema.

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 and resource ('Append markdown content to an existing AFFiNE document'), which clearly separates it from create_doc_from_markdown and replace_doc_with_markdown by the word 'append'. However, it never names those siblings or explains the append-vs-replace distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over append_block, replace_doc_with_markdown, or create_doc_from_markdown, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that the target document must already exist.

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