Append text to the end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the core mutation—appending text to the end of the document—but does not mention side effects, separator/newline behavior, persistence or reversibility, or return value. The main action is transparent, but surrounding behavior is not.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, specifies the target resource, and immediately provides a realistic use case. Every word earns its place.

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 one required string, the description plus the docIndex schema covers the minimum for invocation. However, without annotations or an output schema, it would be more complete if it addressed line-break behavior, whether it returns a result, and how it relates to beat_insert_text or beat_replace_scene.

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?

The schema fully documents docIndex, while 'text' is only typed as string with no description. The tool description adds some semantic meaning to text via the example 'a new scene', but it does not clarify formatting, newline expectations, or content constraints. This partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Append'), explicit resource ('Beat document'), and position ('to the end'), with a concrete example ('a new scene'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like beat_insert_text or beat_replace_scene.

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 phrase 'to the end' and example 'a new scene' give clear context for selecting this tool over insertion or replacement tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as beat_insert_text or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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