append

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this modifies the pattern in-place, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with other operations (e.g., undo/redo). The term 'append' implies mutation but lacks behavioral details.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the essential action and target. There is no wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'current pattern' refers to, how the appended code integrates, what happens on success/failure, or return values. Given the rich sibling toolset for pattern manipulation, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'code' documented as 'Code to append'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Append code to current pattern' clearly states the action (append) and target (current pattern), but is somewhat vague about what 'code' means in this musical context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert' or 'replace' that might modify patterns differently.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'insert', 'replace', or 'generate_pattern'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pattern) or contextual constraints for appending code.

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