append_to_note

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does so by explaining that content is appended to the end, except when the note ends with a hashtag line, in which case content is inserted before the hashtags. This is a non-obvious behavior that is crucial for correct usage. However, it lacks information about idempotency, authorization, or error handling.

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 concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence captures the core action efficiently, and the second adds an important edge case. The use of multiple synonyms for 'append' is slightly redundant but does not harm clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage context and one important edge case. It could improved by mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure) or error conditions, but for a simple append operation, the description is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description does not add significant new information about parameters beyond what is in the schema, though it does reinforce that content is Markdown and name is without extension. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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: appending content to the end of a note body, using multiple synonyms for emphasis. It distinguishes itself from siblings (prepend_to_note, insert_after_section) by specifying 'al final del cuerpo' and describes a special case with hashtags, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 gives explicit ideal use cases: tray notes, growing lists, and logs. While it doesn't directly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling list makes it clear that prepend_to_note and insert_after_section are alternatives for other insertion positions.

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