append_daily_note

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

The description discloses the critical behavioral trait of not overwriting existing content and indicates that it will either create or append. With only a minimal openWorldHint annotation, this description adds meaningful context about the tool's write behavior. It could be improved by stating whether the note is created if missing or how the date parameter is used, but it covers the main safety concern.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no redundancy and every word adds value, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, so the description should do more to explain context such as how the daily note is configured, how date is used, and possible return values. It covers the core purpose but leaves several operational details unspecified, making it minimally viable but not complete.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (vault, content, date). An agent cannot infer the meaning of 'vault' or how 'date' affects behavior from the description alone. This lack of compensation for the undocumented schema is a significant gap.

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's function with specific verbs ('Create or append') and a specific resource ('configured daily note'). It emphasizes the key non-destructive behavior ('without overwriting existing content') and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like append_note or create_note by targeting the daily note specifically.

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 phrase 'configured daily note' implies this tool is for daily notes, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to siblings like append_note, so there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance. Score 4 reflects clear context without exclusions.

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