Append to Capacities Object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation additive, non-destructive ("never removes"), scoped only to the body ("never touches typed properties"), and positional (appends at the END). It stops short of stating what is returned or any auth/error behavior if the objectId is invalid.

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 tight sentences: the additive/end-of-body constraint is front-loaded, then the sibling disambiguation follows. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers intent, scope, and routing adequately. The one real gap is that the agent cannot learn what the call returns or how failures surface, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the Capacities markdown conventions and their object-creating side effects. The description adds only the notion of appending to the body's end, which is baseline-level value when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("Append markdown to the END of an existing object's body") plus the underlying endpoint, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling update_object. An agent can separate this from update_object without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use update_object to change typed properties (scalars/labels/relations), use this to add notes/body. Both the when and the when-not are named, with the alternative called out by name.

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