append_to_page

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 surfaces two key behaviors: sections are created when missing, and human-edited pages are protected unless force: true. It doesn't cover output format or permission requirements, but for an unannotated tool this is strong.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action leads, the auto-create behavior follows, and the guard condition is the final, distinct clause. Every sentence 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?

The description transmits the most important context: appending behavior, section creation, and the force guard. It does not mention what happens if the page is missing, whether output is returned, or error scenarios, but those are secondary for a mutation-oriented tool.

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 50%, with force and section already documented there. The description adds some context by explaining that content is appended and that force bypasses the guard, but it does not clarify the slug or content parameter trade-offs beyond what one would infer from the parameter names.

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 clearly states the action (append), resource (an existing wiki page), and target (a section), and adds the auto-creation behavior. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_note_section or create_note, but the wording is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 tool versus alternatives such as update_note_section or create_note. The force: true clause is a behavioral guardrail, not a usage-selection criterion.

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