notes_append

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately conveys that this is a mutation operation ('Append content') and provides some behavioral context about the search approach reliability. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether the append operation is reversible, what happens if multiple notes match the title, or any rate limits/authentication requirements that might exist.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance about parameter approaches. There's zero wasted text and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has significant gaps. It covers the what and how of the operation but doesn't address important contextual aspects like error conditions, response format, or what happens when the append succeeds/fails. The description is complete enough to understand the tool's basic function but insufficient for robust agent usage without additional context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by emphasizing the reliability difference between noteId and title approaches and mentioning the optional folder parameter's purpose, but doesn't provide significant additional semantic context beyond what's already in the 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 clearly states the specific action ('Append content') and resource ('to an existing note'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notes_create (which creates new notes) and notes_search (which searches notes). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 description provides clear context about when to use different parameter approaches ('Can find by note ID (most reliable) or by title with optional folder filter'), which helps the agent understand alternative usage patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like notes_create or notes_update, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing note.

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