Add a timestamped note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states the action (append) and the nature of the note (timestamped), implying mutation. It does not disclose whether it modifies the entry in place, affects timestamps, or requires specific permissions. This is a mutation that could have side effects, so more disclosure would be helpful, but the core behavior is clear.

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, no waste, and the key action (append) is front-loaded. It communicates the action and target efficiently. Could be slightly more descriptive but is appropriately concise.

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 simple tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is lack of behavioral details (e.g., whether it creates a new line with a timestamp, whether it is reversible). Since it is a simple mutation, the description is close to complete, but omits the timestamp format and the fact that it is an append-to-body operation.

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 (id and note) are adequately described in the schema. The description adds 'timestamped' and 'append' context but does not go beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a note/log line) and the resource (an existing entry). It is distinct from siblings like org_capture which creates new entries anno or org_update_state which changes state. However, it could be more specific about what 'body' means and how this differs from editing the body via other means.

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 phrase 'to an existing entry' indicates the tool requires an existing entry, implying it should not be used for new entries (which would use org_capture). Yet it does not explicitly mention when to use this over org_update_state or org_schedule, nor does it warn against using it for initial creation. Clear context but no exclusions.

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