prepend_to_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact insertion position after the h1 title, which is good. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., note not found), idempotency, or whether the note must already exist. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 consists of exactly two sentences: the first defines the action and precise location, the second provides a concrete use case. No superfluous words; every part adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential points: what the tool does, where it inserts, and a typical use case. The omission of whether the note must pre-exist is minor, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, with both parameters named and described clearly. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema (e.g., it confirms content is Markdown but this is already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the action 'prepend content to the beginning of the note body' and distinguishes itself by stating the exact insertion point (just after the h1 title, before the rest). This differentiates it from siblings like append_to_note or insert_after_section.

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 mentions a specific use case ('inverted log entries'), which implies when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the differentiation clear. A small improvement would be to mention that append_to_note is the alternative for adding at the end.

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