Append text or markdown to an existing editable Keep It note by specifying its item ID, so AI agents can add content to notes without overwriting them.
Append text or markdown content to an existing editable Keep It item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to append | |
| item_id | Yes | The ID of the Keep It item to append to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a mutation tool, yet it says nothing about required permissions, what happens when the item is not editable, whether the append is additive at the end of existing content, or what the call returns on failure.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and target up front and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves little else to work with.
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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. However, as an unannotated mutation tool it omits failure behavior and preconditions that an agent would need to invoke it safely.
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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning, notably that the appended content may be markdown, but gives no format, length, or positioning details beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb (append) and resource (text or markdown content) against a well-defined target (an existing editable Keep It item), which is clearly distinct from siblings like keepit_create_note or keepit_add_link. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating the boundary between append and create.
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 only implied: the word 'existing' signals the item must already exist, and 'editable' hints at a precondition, but the description never states when to choose this over keepit_create_note or keepit_add_link, nor any exclusion for non-editable items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.