append_to_current_note

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing dispatch-time targeting semantics, that no newline is inserted automatically, that saving is unconfirmed, and that the snapshot is unchanged. The persistence caveat and newline behavior are behaviors an agent could not derive from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the highest-risk fact (live-app targeting) front-loaded. Zero filler.

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?

Covers targeting, formatting, and persistence uncertainty for a write operation that has no output schema, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not state what happens if no note is currently open or how a failure of the unconfirmed save surfaces.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It adds real meaning by warning that no newline is auto-appended (the caller must supply formatting), but it says nothing about content length limits or formatting expectations beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb (append) and resource (text) plus a precise target: the note live in the app at dispatch time, explicitly not a snapshot note ID. This distinguishes it from create_note, read_note, and open_note without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Only use when the user explicitly requests appending to the current note,' which is a clear when-to-use and implicit when-not. It does not name an alternative tool for targeting a specific/snapshot note, so routing to a sibling is left to inference.

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