append_to_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior (content lands as a new outline block at the bottom of the page) and the supported HTML tag subset, which is valuable. It omits permissions/auth requirements, reversibility, failure modes, and whether appends are idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and placement semantics before the tag list, and the Args block is compact. The tag enumeration is slightly list-heavy but earns its place by defining valid input.

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, and the two required params are covered. What's missing for a mutation tool is sibling differentiation and any behavioral/authorization caveats that the absent annotations leave unstated.

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 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does document both: page_id with its source (list_live_pages) and content as an HTML string. It could add more on accepted HTML constraints or size limits, but it compensates well for the empty schema.

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 (existing OneNote page), making it clear this adds content rather than reading or creating. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling update_page_content, which an agent must choose between.

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 implies usage by noting the page must already exist and pointing to list_live_pages as the source of the page ID, which is genuinely useful routing. It offers no explicit when-to-use vs. update_page_content or create_page, and no exclusions.

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