append_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not use next_id/previous_id anchors and forces the new block to be the last child, which is important behavioral context beyond the basic insert action. It does not cover error cases or side effects of invalid input, but the core behavior is well-documented.

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 well-structured with sections for scenarios, usage, notes, differences, and an example. Each sentence adds value and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose. While a bit lengthy, the structure makes it easy to scan, and no filler is present.

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 the purpose, parameters, usage scenario, behavioral nuance, and distinction from a sibling tool. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be documented. The example clarifies the expected result, making the tool fully usable without consulting additional resources.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It does so by explaining parent_id as the target parent block ID, data as the content to insert, and data_type as supporting markdown or dom. However, it does not elaborate on the exact allowed values or the optional nature of data_type beyond what the schema implies.

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 tool inserts a trailing child block under a parent, using the phrase '插入后置子块' and demonstrating with an example. It explicitly distinguishes from insert_block, making its specific resource and behavior clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: appending to a parent block for stable hierarchy, and when not to use it, directing users to insert_block for inserting in the middle. The section '与 insert_block 的区别' explicitly defines the alternative and the conditions that select it.

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