Append to page

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

The description discloses the underlying 'read-modify-write' mechanism and that it 'creates a new version', which is not covered by the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive). This adds valuable context about side effects and versioning, going beyond the structured metadata.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero filler. It efficiently conveys what, how, and typical use cases in minimal words.

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 annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and use cases. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing page) or return values, but given the availability of annotations and the simplicity of the operation, it is reasonably complete. A 5 would require explicit handling of failure scenarios or output details.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema: 'page' and 'content' are self-explanatory, and 'separator' is described in the schema. The description's mention of 'Markdown' aligns with the content parameter but does not extend it.

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 a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('existing page'), clearly distinguishing it from create_page and update_page. It also specifies the input format ('Markdown') and the position ('end'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 use cases ('Ideal for logs, reports, and running notes') and implies when to choose this over update_page by emphasizing append semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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