Append content to a note using a per-file lock and expected hash to prevent overwrites. Pass the current hash to verify the note hasn't changed before updating.
Append to a note under a per-file lock with optimistic-concurrency check on expected_hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| expected_hash | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful non-obvious behavior: per-file locking and optimistic-concurrency checking on expected_hash. However, it does not explain failure behavior when the hash mismatches or what the response looks like, so it is not fully transparent.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and adds the concurrency caveat without any filler. Every word contributes useful information.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits error behavior, lock semantics in practice, whether the note must pre-exist, and how optimistic-concurrency failures surface. That makes it incomplete for safe use.
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 only clarifies expected_hash's role in the concurrency check, while note and content are left to name inference. It does not explain how to obtain or format expected_hash, which is critical for correct invocation.
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 action ('Append to a note') and the resource, which distinguishes it from read/list/move/search operations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the verb 'append' makes the core purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_inbox_note or update_metadata. It also does not state prerequisites such as whether the note must already exist or how to obtain the expected_hash.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.