append_note

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it preserves frontmatter and is safe for 'append-only workflows,' which provides context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the additional safety/use-case context is provided in a second sentence. Every phrase adds value, making it appropriately sized and 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 a simple append operation with three parameters, the description covers the key points: it appends, preserves frontmatter, and indicates safe workflows. However, it does not mention error behaviors (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist) or whether it creates a note if missing. Given the low complexity and existing annotations, this is a minor gap.

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%, with each parameter (path, content, prevHash) already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics, so it remains at the baseline score of 3 given the complete 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Append text to a note body without touching the frontmatter.' This is a specific verb (append) and resource (note body), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from other mutation tools by mentioning the frontmatter preservation, which differentiates it from patch_note or replace_in_note.

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 provides context on when the tool is appropriate ('Safe for meeting notes, daily logs, and append-only workflows'), but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternative tools. It implies usage scenarios but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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