Append note

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation)Skip, and the description adds the useful behavioral detail that existing notes are kept. This does not contradict the annotations Tags, but no additional side effects, failure behavior, or permission requirements are disclosed.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key behavior (append without overwriting) and earns every word.

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?

Given the low schema coverage and sparse annotations, an agent lacks guidance on how to identify the target note (id vs name), whether either identifier is sufficient, and what happens when both or neither are provided. The description is too brief to support correct invocation in ambiguous cases.

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 only 25%, and the tool description does not compensate. It adds no meaning for the id/name selector ambiguity, does not explain how item_type relates to the operation, and largely repeats what the schema already states.

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 ('Append') and names the resource ('a task or project note'), also clarifying that it does not overwrite. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, but the behavior is clearly distinguished from overwrite-style operations.

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?

'Without overwriting it' implies the tool is appropriate when existing note content must be preserved. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_item, nor any mention of prerequisites or selection strategy.

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