Append to Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does mention appending to an existing note, implying a non-destructive behavior and a prerequisite of existence, but it does not describe error conditions (e.g., what happens if the note does not exist) or any permission requirements. This adds some value beyond the name but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide use-case context. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity, two parameters, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary purpose, use cases, and the fact that it targets existing notes. Minor gaps include lack of error-handling details, but these are not critical for a straightforward append operation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description additionally clarifies that 'content' is appended rather than replacing anything, slightly enriching the semantics. However, it adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 text to the end of an existing note, using the specific verb 'append' and identifying the resource (note) and position (end). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_note or create_note.

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 provides clear context by stating it is 'great for adding updates, new entries, or continuing a log,' which helps the agent understand typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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