Append Block

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that it supports placement and strict validation, which provides some context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or ordering guarantees, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with 'Append document blocks', and contains no filler. Every phrase ('canonical types and legacy aliases', 'supports placement + strict validation') conveys key differentiating features.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (37 params, nested objects), the schema provides exhaustive documentation, and an output schema exists. The description summarizes the core value proposition compactly, though it omits details like edgeless vs doc contexts and markdown parsing, which are captured in the schema. This is sufficient for an agent guided by schema.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions canonical types/aliases, placement, and strict validation, but these are already covered in the schema (e.g., type's 'Legacy aliases remain supported', placement and strict properties). No additional meaning is added.

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 document blocks, and emphasizes canonical types, legacy aliases, placement, and strict validation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_markdown (raw markdown) and append_semantic_section (semantic sections), even though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description states what the tool does but does not contrast it with append_markdown, append_semantic_section, or update_edgeless_block. Users/agents must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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