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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a bounded, non-destructive write. The description's main behavioral claim ("appends to the end by default") and the position/targetPath interaction largely restate what the schema text for `position` and `targetPath` already says, so it adds little new disclosure such as reversibility, required page/site state, or undo interaction.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the placement nuance; nothing is wasted. Minor redundancy with the schema's own `position` default means it is efficient but not maximally economical.

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 a large recursive component schema, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, placement defaults, and targeting guidance adequate to invoke it correctly. It omits any pointer to prerequisite state (an open page) or companion tools like read_page/build-guide, but the schema covers the key mechanics.

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% and the `position`/`targetPath` properties already document defaults, enum meaning, and the fallback to canvas selection. The description's mention of passing `position` with `targetPath` mirrors that text rather than adding format or syntax detail, so the schema remains the primary source.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Insert a new section into the current page") plus the concrete section archetypes it targets (hero, features, pricing, CTA). It does not explicitly contrast itself with neighbors like swebsy_insert_block or swebsy_duplicate_section, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from names alone.

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 for adding discrete sections ... to an existing page" gives clear context for when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer insert_block or duplicate_section instead), so the routing decision is not fully closed.

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