append_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait beyond the schema: the implicit default target of wiki/logs/YYYY-MM-DD.md. But it does not say whether the file is created if absent, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what is returned.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the default-destination rule immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

Adequate minimum for a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema: the action and default target are clear. It stops short of covering creation-on-missing-file, failure modes, or return behavior, which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by adding real semantics beyond the schema: 'path' omitted means the note goes to the current day's log file. The default-path behavior is not derivable from the schema's 'Optional target page.'

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 ('appends') and resource ('note or log entry'), which is distinguishable from write_page's full-page write by the append semantics. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with write_page, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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?

Implies usage for quick notes and specifies the default destination when 'path' is omitted, which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus write_page, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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