Append to a pad

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

The description explicitly states that the tool appends text verbatim without altering other content or concurrent edits. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and that it operates in an open-world setting (openWorldHint: true). The description adds essential context about nondestructive appending behavior, which goes beyond the annotation declarations.

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 only two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence clearly states the action and its safe side effects, while the second provides a crucial usage tip. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core behavior and a practical nuance. It does not mention failure modes (e.g., what happens if the pad does not exist), but the schema's required fields and pattern already constrain valid usage. With no output schema, the agent might wonder about the return value, but the tool's API likely mirrors the input confirmation (a minor gap).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that 'text' is appended verbatim, which the schema already says ('Text to append verbatim'). It adds the practical tip about including a leading newline to start a new line, which is helpful but not a semantic improvement over the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Appends') and resource ('a pad'), with explicit scope ('to the end of a pad'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'set_document' (which replaces entire content) and 'replace_in_document' (which modifies specific parts) by emphasizing it only appends.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (to add text without affecting existing content or concurrent edits). It implies the alternative of using a newline to start a new line. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where one should choose 'replace_in_document' for editing middle content or 'create_document' for new pads.

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