append_note

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: the note is created when it does not already exist. It omits whether appending inserts a separator or newline, whether an existing note's prior content is preserved intact, and any permission or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical is the highest-value information in the definition. It is arguably too terse for a three-parameter mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage on three parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict folder scoping or append formatting.

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 and largely does not. It never clarifies that 'title' is the identifier used for lookup/creation, nor what 'folder' controls (e.g., default empty means root), nor how 'content' is joined to existing text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (append to a note) and adds the important upsert nuance that the note is created if missing, which separates it from a plain read or overwrite. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (write_note), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over write_note or read_note, nor any precondition guidance. The parenthetical hints that callers need not check existence first, but that is inference rather than explicit usage guidance.

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