Append Block to Document

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 key behavioral traits: it's a mutation operation (implied by 'Appends'), it adds content without replacing existing content, and it accepts TipTap XML for various block types. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the document doesn't exist. The description does not contradict any annotations (since none exist).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by essential details about input format and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and input format but lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), error handling, response format, or side effects. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial for safe invocation.

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 explains that the 'text' parameter accepts 'TipTap XML for any block type' and provides examples (e.g., '<paragraph>text</paragraph>', '<heading level="2">Title</heading>'), adding crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Text' title. However, it does not clarify the semantics of 'graph_id' or 'document_id' parameters, leaving them undocumented.

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 specific action ('Appends a block to the end of a document') and resource ('document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'insert_block' (which might insert at arbitrary positions) or 'write_document' (which might replace content). It explicitly mentions 'incremental additions without replacing existing content' to further differentiate.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('for incremental additions without replacing existing content') and gives examples of acceptable content types (plain text vs. structured XML). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'insert_block' for non-append insertions, 'update_block' for modifications, or 'write_document' for full replacements).

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