Append to Note

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

Annotations only convey basic hints, so the description carries the burden and succeeds. It discloses the automatic newline insertion behavior, the immediate index update, the unconditional behavior when if_match is omitted, and the failing-loudly behavior for missing files by default.

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 core purpose and the deciding factor (no read needed). Every sentence adds practical value—newline behavior, index updates, and avoid-reindex guidance—without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the rich output schema and fully covered input schema, the description is complete. It answers the key operational questions an agent needs: when to use it, what happens to formatting, concurrency behavior, missing-file behavior, and post-call indexing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: how newlines are handled, that leading blank lines/heading markers are the caller's responsibility, and that a typo in path fails loudly rather than creating a note. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 states a specific action (append text) on a specific resource (an existing .md note) with a precise location (end of the note). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from 'edit' by noting that no prior read is needed, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use for purely additive at-end changes, prefer over 'edit' because it avoids loading the note into context. It also explicitly says not to call 'reindex' afterward, and explains the tradeoff of create_if_missing behavior.

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