Append to scratchpad

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that existing notes are preserved and that ticket ID mentions surface in work packets. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like file size limits, error conditions, or whether the file is created if missing. With annotations already marking it as non-destructive and a write operation, the description adds moderate value.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and effect. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second adds a useful linking feature. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary action and the ticket-linking feature. However, it lacks details about error handling (e.g., invalid project, missing scratchpad), formatting behavior, and whether the append is atomic. It is minimally adequate but has noticeable gaps.

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 describes 'text' as 'Text to append' and does not describe 'project'. The description does not provide additional meaning for either parameter: it does not clarify what 'project' represents (e.g., ID or name) or imply any constraints beyond the schema. The ticket ID mention is a usage tip, not parameter semantics.

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'), the resource ('board's scratchpad.md'), and the effect ('preserving existing notes'). It also introduces the unique feature of linking to ticket IDs, distinguishing it from siblings like set_scratchpad (overwrite) and get_scratchpad (read).

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 when to use the tool (to add notes without overwriting) and provides a specific usage hint about ticket IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., set_scratchpad for overwriting), leaving some room for ambiguity.

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