append_noteAdd new content to the end of an existing note, preserving its current text and avoiding full rewrites.
Append content to the end of a note. Prefer over full rewrites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that content is appended to the end of a note; it does not mention behavior when note_id does not exist, whether content is inserted verbatim, newline/formatting handling, idempotency, permissions, or failure modes.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second adds a useful usage preference. 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 two-string-parameter operation, the description covers the essential intent and the output schema covers the return shape. Still, with no annotations and no parameter-level detail, some context about the expected existence of the note and error/edge-case behavior is missing.
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%, and the description does not explain either parameter beyond what their names imply. It gives no additional meaning about note_id validity, content format, or constraints, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 the specific verb 'Append' with the resource 'note' and the position 'end', clearly distinguishing it from update_note, patch_note, or create_note. The phrase 'Prefer over full rewrites' further reinforces what this tool is for compared to rewrite-style siblings.
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 instruction 'Prefer over full rewrites' gives an explicit usage preference, signaling that this tool should be chosen when adding content rather than replacing a note. However, it does not name sibling tools or specify when to avoid append (e.g., when reordering or replacing content), so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.