shared_notes_append

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses append-only behavior and automatic timestamping, which helps an agent avoid assuming overwrite semantics. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but for a simple append operation this is meaningful transparency.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the tag guidance is directly actionable.

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 tool, the description covers the essential action and tag convention. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves unspecified what the tool returns and when it should be preferred over closely related siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a concrete tag format ('handoff:<id>') and identifies note as the content being appended, but it does not describe note's format, length limits, or the effect of omitting tag.

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 specific resource ('shared notes'), and key behavior ('append-only'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling shared_notes_read and other memory operations.

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 tag convention 'Use tag like handoff:<id>' gives relevant format guidance, and the append-only wording implies a writing operation rather than a read. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus shared_notes_read or shared_memory_set.

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