append_to_baton

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the cost model (FREE, prepaid writes budget), the auth requirement (owner or editor/write-token only), and the destructive semantics of overwrite=true (replace in full on overwrite-shaped batons). It stops short of describing edge cases or errors, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 two terse sentences plus an illustrative example. The core distinction (append vs overwrite) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main invocation modes, permissions, cost, and content format. But it does not address version_id usage, contentType, overwrite defaults, or what happens when the overwrite flag does not match the baton's preset shape, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for content (text or base64), overwrite (replace in full), and id via the example. However, it leaves contentType unexplained, does not state overwrite's default, and ignores the 'binary' contentEncoding option in the enum, making the compensation only partial.

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 ('Write to a baton') and immediately distinguishes two behaviors: append for append/append-chained presets and overwrite for single-object/checkpoint presets. This makes the operation unambiguous and clearly different from sibling tools like read_baton or create_baton.

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 explicit conditions for when each mode applies based on preset shape, and states the required permission level. It does not name sibling tools or say when not to use this tool, but the provided context is sufficient to pick the correct mode for a write operation.

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