append_to_note

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable non-annotation context: the read-then-conditional-write semantics and the fact that a concurrent edit is reported rather than silently overwritten, which explains why the operation is non-idempotent.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the concurrency caveat following. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, concurrency behavior, and the conflict outcome, while annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of explaining how the conflict is 'reported' (error vs. response field) or mentioning the separator, leaving a minor gap.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of the appended 'text' and the implicit target note, but never mentions the 'separator' parameter or its blank-line default, which is the one parameter the schema does document. Partial compensation only.

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 precise verb+resource ('Append text to the end of a note') and immediately contrasts the approach with the alternative of resending the whole body, which is exactly what sibling update_note would do. An agent can distinguish this from update_note without opening either schema.

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 resending its whole body' clearly implies this should be chosen over a full-body update when only appending. However, it never names update_note as the alternative or states exclusions, so the routing guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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