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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds real value beyond them: the deterministic key derivation (lowercase-hyphen with -2/-3 suffixes when taken), the case-insensitive 409 refusal, and the guarantee that a module template reinstall leaves the section intact.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and placement, then the key-generation and conflict rules. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 with no output schema and full param documentation, the description covers the key edge cases an agent needs: name collisions, generated key format, and persistence across template reinstall. It omits return shape and auth requirements, but those are minor given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description explains the name-to-key transformation and the conflict behavior, which the schema does not. The after_key fallback ('omitted, it goes last') is also clarified, adding meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (empty section) scoped to the automation's Policy, with placement semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from addConfigField and renameConfigSection by resource, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 implies usage through the placement and key-conflict rules, but it never states when to choose this over addConfigField, renameConfigSection, or reorderConfigSections, nor any prerequisite conditions. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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