Append event commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does reasonably well: it discloses the terminator-handling invariant (code-0 stays last), the post-append re-read of block structure, and the warnings-on-indent-mismatch return behavior. It still omits failure behavior for invalid codes and any permission/validation notes, so it is not fully transparent for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, all substantive, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite and return behavior following in logical order. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover everything; it explains the warnings return but omits what happens on malformed codes, whether writes are atomic, and how mapId/eventId/pageIndex scope the operation. Adequate for the happy path, incomplete for an agent handling edge cases.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate: it mirrors the required command fields and adds real meaning to `indent` via the branch-matching rule. But mapId, eventId, and pageIndex are unexplained (only `at` is documented in the schema), leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (append) and resource (raw {code, indent, parameters} commands to a page), which is precise and unambiguous. It does not name the obvious sibling set_commands or explain how append differs from replacing a page's command list, so sibling differentiation is left 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?

Gives one actionable prerequisite (call command_catalog first to learn a code's parameter layout), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to choose this over set_commands or decode_commands, nor any conditions/exclusions for use.

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