brain_append_note

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses non-destructive behavior and auto-creation of a note when none exists. This is sufficient for a simple append operation, though it doesn't mention return values or side effects beyond creation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every phrase adds value; no filler.

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 3-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key behavior, creation semantics, and non-destructiveness. It could mention when not to use (if replacing note) or return behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 provides descriptions for brainId and markdown, but thoughtId is undocumented. The description adds general context about accumulating material but not parameter-specific semantics. With 67% coverage, it's adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Clearly states the action (appends text) and result (to end of a note without erasing anything), and positions it as the main way to accumulate material. Distinguishes from likely sibling brain_set_note by emphasizing non-destructive accumulation.

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?

Explicitly identifies when this tool is the main choice ('main way to accumulate material on a thought'), and implies alternatives by stressing that it does not erase. It doesn't name specific alternatives like brain_set_note, but the context is clear.

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