kb_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: content is appended (additive), and a missing document is auto-created. It also names the success/failure return strings. It does not cover permissions, concurrency, or what happens on duplicate filenames.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then uses labeled sections (用途/入参/返回/下一步) for scannability with no filler. The 返回 line is arguably redundant given an output schema exists, but overall it is tight and well-structured.

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 re-explained, and the description still adds role guidance for game_name plus usage scenarios. The main gap is lack of differentiation from the sibling kb_write, which an agent may otherwise confuse with this 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all three parameters and clarifies that game_name is an optional categorization folder, which is genuinely useful. It does not explain the expected filename format or markdown_content conventions, so the compensation is only partial.

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+resource (append content to an existing knowledge-base document) and adds the fallback behavior of auto-creating the file. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling kb_write, which is the most obvious alternative for writing documents.

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?

Gives concrete usage scenarios (add a conclusion line after a match, add a new observation to a BOSS habit), which clearly frames when this tool is appropriate. However it offers no exclusions or explicit routing versus kb_write/kb_search, leaving the append-vs-write choice to inference.

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