konsulto_append_to_section

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 that content is markdown and converted to rich-text, but omits details on idempotency, error handling, or permission requirements.

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?

Three concise sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, second provides usage context, third clarifies format. Front-loaded and effective.

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 append operation, the description covers input format and conversion behavior. It does not address edge cases like nonexistent sections or content length limits, but is sufficient for typical usage.

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 67%. The description adds meaning to 'section' by listing canonical names and aliases, and to 'content' by specifying markdown prose. However, 'findingId' lacks description in both schema and description.

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 verb 'Append' and the resource 'named section of a finding', distinguishing it from siblings like konsulto_read_section and konsulto_replace_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 provides guidance on when to use: 'Use this to add a paragraph or two without touching the rest of the finding.' It implies when not to use (replace full section) but doesn't explicitly list alternatives.

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