Append to note

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

Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the key behavioral detail that existing content is preserved. However, it doesn't disclose behavior for missing notes, permission requirements, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the verb and direct object are front-loaded. Could arguably be 5, but it lacks any structured guidance for the deprecated aliases or optional parameters, so 4.

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 schema leaves id and itemType optional, yet the description doesn't explain what happens when they are omitted or how the target is resolved. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters and deprecated aliases, the description alone is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds no extra meaning about the optionality of id/itemType or the deprecated aliases. At high schema coverage the baseline is 3; no additional value is provided.

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 the specific operation (append) and resource (task or project note), and explicitly notes the non-destructive behavior ('without overwriting'), which distinguishes it from edit-type tools. It doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, so not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like edit_item or batch_edit_items, no prerequisites (e.g., must supply id/itemType), and no exclusions. The one-sentence description implies 'use to append' but offers no decision support.

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