append_daily_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavior: it appends rather than overwrites. However, it does not explain what happens when the file does not exist, what a null date means, or how the optional heading affects the appended item.

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 front-loads the action and resource, and the non-destructive guarantee is useful and 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?

The tool has no annotations and no parameter documentation, so the description needed to compensate. It leaves meaningful gaps: how the optional date and heading parameters behave, whether the daily note file is auto-created, and what the output schema represents. It is enough for a very basic call but not for confident correct use of all parameters.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the role of 'content', 'date', and 'heading', but it only refers generically to 'an item'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the default/null behavior and the meaning of 'heading' are left entirely to inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Append'), a specific resource ('Daily/YYYY-MM-DD.md'), and a clear non-destructive behavior ('without overwriting existing text'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling read/lookup tools.

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 implies this is the tool to use for adding to a dated daily note, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling-specific differentiation or exclusion criteria are provided.

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