append_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the mutation behavior (appending content) and specifies the location of the append (end of page body). However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if there are size limits on content, or how conflicts are handled if multiple users append simultaneously.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by well-organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated immediately.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description does a good job. It explains the core functionality, documents parameters, and specifies the return value ('更新后的笔记元信息（不含完整 body）' - updated note metadata without full body). However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, it could benefit from more behavioral context about side effects or constraints.

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 description explicitly documents both parameters (note_id and content) with clear Chinese explanations, despite 0% schema description coverage. It provides essential semantic information: note_id identifies the target note, and content is the text to append. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't provide format details like note_id structure or content encoding.

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 specific action ('向已有笔记追加内容' - append content to existing note), the target resource ('笔记' - note), and the precise location ('追加到页面 body 末尾' - append to end of page body). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_note (which creates new notes) and get_note (which retrieves notes).

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 provides clear context by specifying this is for '已有笔记' (existing notes), implying it should not be used for creating new notes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives for different scenarios (e.g., when to use update_task vs append_note for task-related content).

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