append_to_noteAppend plain text to an existing Apple Note without altering its current content. Get a clear error if the note is password protected.
Append plain text to an existing note's body. Never replaces existing content. Fails with a clear error if the note is password protected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id of the note to append to. | |
| text | Yes | Plain text to append. Each line becomes one paragraph. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: that existing content is preserved and that password-protected notes cause a clear error. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the critical caveat ('Never replaces existing content') appears immediately after the verb phrase.
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 two-parameter append operation, the description covers the core behavior, the non-destructive guarantee, and the main failure edge case. No output schema exists, but the agent has enough to call this correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both id and text. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, placing it at the baseline of 3.
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 verb ('Append'), a resource ('existing note's body'), and a scope ('plain text') in the first sentence. It also distinguishes itself from sibling update_note by explicitly saying 'Never replaces existing content.'
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: to add text without replacing, which contrasts with update_note. Password-protected failure is also stated. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give a concrete 'use X instead' routing, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.