append_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses the exact insertion point ('before the final trailing newline'), a non-destructive dry_run mode, the fact that the returned payload re-reads and diffs the document, and a complete list of error conditions. An agent gets an accurate model of side effects and failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then flows through usage trigger, dry-run safety, return semantics, and errors in a logical order. There is no filler; the error list is compact and directly useful, and every sentence adds meaningful guidance.

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 description covers behavior, when to use it, dry-run safety, return semantics, and likely errors. Since an output schema is present, the description does not need to detail the return structure. The only minor gap is a direct definition of doc_id, but that is negligible given the 'document tab' context and tab_id error explanation.

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. It explains dry_run's purpose, describes markdown as compiled content with unsupported-construct errors, and clarifies tab_id through TAB_NOT_FOUND. doc_id is not explicitly defined, though its role is reasonably inferable from 'document tab'; a brief explicit definition would make this a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Append compiled markdown at the end of a document tab.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing append-at-end behavior and 'without disturbing existing content,' which separates it from replace_text or replace_range_markdown.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this tool when you need to add new content at the end of a tab.' It also provides negative guidance by telling agents that a follow-up read_document is redundant. However, it does not name alternative tools for when appending is NOT appropriate, so it stops short of a full 5.

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