Append to a note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real traits: the operation is non-destructive and a missing heading is auto-created at the end. It omits what happens if 'ref' matches no note (error vs. creation) and gives no return-value context.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the clarifying safety note follows immediately.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanics but leaves meaningful gaps: behavior when the note does not exist, and what the agent should expect on success or failure.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for 'heading' by explaining the create-if-missing behavior, which the schema's terse 'Section heading to append under' does not convey.

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 markdown to a note') plus a qualifier about the target heading. The phrase 'without overwriting anything' implicitly distinguishes it from replace_note_body, but that sibling is not named, leaving the contrast to inference.

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 safe default way to add content without overwriting anything' gives a clear selection rule for content addition. It does not name explicit alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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