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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description need not restate safety. However, it adds no context about the non-idempotent behavior (repeated calls create duplicate sections) or what happens if the preset is invalid, leaving gaps the annotations only imply.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the dependency hint following; there is no filler and nothing is buried.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needs only purpose and routing, both of which it supplies. It is slightly thin on mutation prerequisites (page state, event/page relationship), but nothing essential to invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the fact that position defaults to append and that preset_name comes from list_site_section_presets. The description largely repeats the schema's preset_name hint and says nothing extra about position semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (add) and resource (a preset section on a registration site page) and scopes it by preset name. It is clearly distinct from add_site_block and remove_site_section, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with add_site_block, which is the nearest sibling.

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?

"Use list_site_section_presets to see available preset names" gives an explicit discovery workflow for the required preset_name argument. It does not state when to choose this over add_site_block or what preconditions (draft page, existing page) apply.

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