append_to_note

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

The description mentions 'without overwriting' as a key behavior, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if path doesn't exist), return value, and does not elaborate on the add_timestamp parameter beyond the schema. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main use and behavior. It could mention success/error responses but is largely sufficient.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'without overwriting' and the use cases.

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 verb (append), resource (note), and key behavior (without overwriting). It distinguishes from siblings like create_note and delete_note, and provides specific use cases (journals, logs, meeting notes).

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 provides context by listing ideal use cases (journals, logs, etc.), implying when to use. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives for overwriting, which could be inferred from sibling tool names.

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