onenote_append_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does usefully disclose that only plain text is accepted and gives the exact confirmation string returned, but it omits failure behavior, whether existing page content is preserved, and any auth/permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then adds a compact return-format line and a worked example. The sections are short and each earns its place, though the Return Format block partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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 two-parameter append tool with a 100%-described schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior for a mutation operation (invalid page_id, permission failures), which is minor here.

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% with both parameters described, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The example reinforces the newline-as-paragraph convention, but that is also stated in the schema, so the description adds little beyond it.

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 a specific verb (append) and resource (OneNote page end), and the verb itself contrasts with the sibling onenote_create_page without needing to name it. It does not explicitly differentiate from onenote_get_page or onenote_export, so it falls just short of 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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'append' versus sibling create/get tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over onenote_create_page or what preconditions exist (e.g., page must already exist). Implied guidance only.

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