append_note

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

The description discloses the core behavior (append, not replace) and requires the note to already exist ('existing'), adding context beyond the openWorldHint annotation. However, it does not mention potential error behavior for non-existent paths, formatting details like newline insertion, or whether the operation is atomic. Some behavioral transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 sentence of ten words, tightly scoped and front-loaded with the core action ('Append content'). It contains no filler and every word contributes to meaning.

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 is simple with three required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary function (append) and the key constraint (note must exist, content not replaced), which is sufficient for most use cases. It doesn't discuss edge cases like missing vault or whether a newline is automatically added, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of output schema, the description is close to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While the three parameters (vault, path, content) are fairly self-evident from the tool name and siblings, the description does nothing to disambiguate their roles or constraints beyond the schema's own type/minLength definitions. With no parameter details provided, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('append') and resource ('existing Markdown note'), and explicitly contrasts with replacement ('without replacing it'), distinguishing it from update_note and create_note. This is a clear and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 'without replacing it' implies the tool is for adding content rather than overwriting, which hints at when to use it over update_note. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternative tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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