Append to a Rootr document (preferred write)

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) don't fully describe behavior, but the description adds that it is 'conflict-free, additive operation — it never overwrites existing content.' This discloses the key trait beyond annotations. However, it could mention error handling or behavior if target document doesn't exist.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly defines the action, and the second provides usage guidance and benefit. 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 simple append tool with three parameters, the description covers the core behavior and usage context. It lacks details on what happens if the target document doesn't exist or if the heading is misspelled, but given the simplicity, the description is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for 'underHeading' by clarifying that a missing heading section is created at the document end, which is not in the schema. It also reinforces that content is Markdown. This additional guidance raises the score.

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 tool appends content to a Rootr document with an optional heading. It distinguishes from sibling rootr_write by explicitly recommending this tool for adding new information. The verb 'append' and resource 'Rootr document' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'prefer this over rootr_write whenever you just need to add new information (log entries, notes, findings) to an existing document.' It also explains why it's preferred (conflict-free, additive). No exclusions needed, but strong context is provided.

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