Append Semantic Section

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

The annotations already convey readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as ordering, duplication on repeated calls, or prerequisites. It is consistent with annotations but contributes minimally.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool with 7 parameters and optional section positioning (afterSectionTitle), the description is minimal. However, the schema fills in parameter semantics and the output schema likely covers returns, so the description's brevity is partially compensated.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain them. The brief phrase 'by heading title and native block composition' aligns with schema but adds no new detail.

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 action (append), resource (semantic section to an existing AFFiNE document), and method (by heading title and native block composition). It distinguishes from creation tools but doesn't explicitly compare to append_block or append_markdown.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like append_markdown or append_block. It doesn't state exclusions or use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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