append_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the fragment is pasted at the caret, the rest of the note is untouched, and styles/attachments are preserved. It also hints at the true_styles behavior by contrasting with an alternative rewrite path, adding valuable behavioral context beyond a basic 'append' statement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately clarifying scope. No redundant wording; every clause adds meaning (Markdown format, preservation, caret behavior). It is appropriately sized for a moderately complex tool.

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 complexity (5 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the key usage context and behavioral nuances. The schema fills in parameter details, and the description clarifies the core append semantics and preservation guarantees. It could mention return values or error handling, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only noting that the text is Markdown 'like create_note's body,' which helps clarify the text parameter but doesn't significantly compensate for the other parameters. The schema itself already provides detailed descriptions, especially for true_styles.

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 (append to the end of an existing note) with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing that the rest of the note is untouched and that the text is Markdown like create_note's body, which differentiates it from update_note and create_note.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (appending to an existing note while preserving existing content) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The mention of 'like create_note's body' implies consistency with create_note, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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