append_note

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing auto-creation on missing notes, atomic write semantics, optimistic-concurrency rejection via expected_sha256, and the frontmatter side effect of refreshing/inserting the `updated:` date. These are exactly the mutation behaviors an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the concurrency guard, then the side effect. No filler and no repetition.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers creation-on-missing, atomicity, the stale-write guard, and frontmatter side effects. It stops short of saying what a successful call returns or how a sha256 mismatch surfaces, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 path/text/vault/expected_sha256 are already documented, and the schema's own text ('rejects stale appends') nearly duplicates the description's sha256 note. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds framing but no new parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Append text to a note') plus the important edge case that the note is created when missing. The append semantics cleanly separate it from write_note/delete_note even without naming a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated: nothing tells the agent when to prefer append_note over write_note, or when appending is inappropriate. The one conditional it does give ('Optionally pass expected_sha256 to prevent appending to a changed note') is helpful but parameter-level, not tool-level routing.

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