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

The annotations only provide negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries most of the burden. Beyond the word 'Create,' it does not disclose what happens after creation, whether changes are persisted immediately, what response to expect, or whether any side effects occur. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little behavioral context.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed directly by the most important constraints and the conditional rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The main correctness trap—the conditional relationship between layout, as_collection, and collection_type—is fully explained, which is the most important part for invoking the tool correctly. However, with no output schema and weak annotations, the description omits what a successful call returns, whether default visibility applies, and any broader assumptions about the target section, making it adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does well: it states title's max length and requiredness, makes the layout/as_collection/collection_type conditional explicit, and instructs the agent to omit layout when collection_type is sent. It still leaves is_visible and as_collection semantically lightweight, but the critical branching logic is much clearer than the schema alone.

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 states a clear, specific action ('Create a section') with the exact resource, so an agent can tell this is a creation operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like split_create_collection or split_transform_collection_to_section, but the resource noun and name are sufficient to avoid serious ambiguity.

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 useful internal usage rules: title is always required, layout is required unless as_collection is true, and collection_type should be sent when as_collection is true. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer split_create_section over its sibling tools or when not to use it, so alternatives are left to the agent to infer.

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