append_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (append-only, preserves frontmatter) and characterizes it as 'safe', which is helpful. The prevHash compare-and-swap guard is documented in the schema but the description's safety framing adds context about the tool's non-destructive nature. It doesn't mention error behaviors or return values, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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?

Single, tightly-packed sentence with zero wasted words. It names the action, the resource, the exclusion (frontmatter), and the use cases, all efficiently. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 an append tool with 100% schema coverage, this is reasonably complete. It explains the append-only concept, the safety framing, and relevant use cases. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but for a simple append operation with no output schema this is acceptable. It could arguably name append_periodic_note as a sibling alternative, but the core completeness is solid.

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 documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds the key context that content is appended (implying order/placement) and that path is vault-relative. The prevHash commit semantics are explained in the schema. The description adds some value around the append behavior but doesn't go well beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Append text to a note body without touching the frontmatter.' The specific resource is 'note body' with the exclusion of frontmatter, distinguishing it from patch_frontmatter. It doesn't explicitly name its sibling append_periodic_note, but the purpose is specific enough to differentiate the main function.

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?

States clear use cases ('meeting notes, daily logs, append-only workflows') and explicitly notes 'without touching the frontmatter' which helps differentiate from patch_frontmatter and patch_note. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like append_periodic_note for comparison.

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