append_to_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'append' (implying mutation) and 'existing' (implying no creation), but it omits important side effects such as whether the file is modified in place, error behavior for non-existent files, or any permissions required. The description is too minimal to fully disclose the tool's behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and target without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple append operation with two string parameters, the description, combined with the schema, conveys the essential information: it appends to an existing workspace-relative Markdown note. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists) or error conditions, but the low complexity of the tool means these are less critical. The description is largely sufficient 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some clarification: 'workspace-relative' hints at the expected format for filename, and 'text' clarifies the nature of content. However, it does not explain details like whether content is appended with a newline or how filename path resolution works. The compensation is partial but adequate for simple string parameters.

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 action ('Append text') and the target resource ('an existing workspace-relative Markdown note'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note (create new), read_note (read), and search_notes (search).

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to add text to an existing note. The word 'existing' signals a precondition and implicitly contrasts with create_note, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used (e.g., for overwriting content). Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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