Append text to the end of an existing note. Use this to add content without overwriting existing data; the operation fails if the note does not exist.
Appends text to the end of an existing note. Fails if the note does not exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Relative path of the note inside the vault | |
| content | Yes | Text to append to the end of the note |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the positional behavior (append at end), the mutating nature of appending, and a concrete failure condition when the note does not exist. It does not describe the return value or potential side effects like newline handling, but it is sufficiently transparent for a simple append operation.
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 contain no filler, and the primary action and critical failure condition are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, where it does it, and when it fails. A slightly richer description could mention what is returned on success, but that is not required for correct invocation given the simple side-effect behavior.
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% and the schema already documents path and content precisely. The description adds little beyond restating the append-to-end behavior already present in the content parameter description, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 ('Appends') and resource ('end of an existing note') and clearly distinguishes this from create_note by requiring an existing note and by appending rather than creating. The failure condition reinforces the scope.
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 states a clear usage context: use this to add text to the end of an existing note, and it warns that nonexistent notes cause failure. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as create_note for new notes, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.