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

Annotations only mark this as a non-destructive write; the description adds the behavior that matters: auto mode publishes the change directly on a published page while draft preserves an explicit draft, expectedVersion is required for concurrency safety, and the insertion fallback position. It also states the return value (IDs to customize next), which is critical for follow-up edits.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then insertion position, then return value, then mode/concurrency. Every sentence carries information, though the packing of mode semantics into the final clause makes it slightly hard to parse.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the mutation effect (live vs draft), concurrency via expectedVersion, placement, and follow-up IDs. The unexplained 'live' enum value and unstated permission requirements are the remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does add real meaning for afterSectionId (insertion point with fallback), expectedVersion (required), and mode (auto vs draft). However, the mode enum also allows 'live', which is never explained, and pageId/sectionId/templateId are only implied rather than described, leaving a gap against the 6-parameter 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 and resource: copying a section from a library template into an existing page, including layout, images, fonts, and tablet/phone versions. It even names the sibling tool list_template_sections as the source, so an agent can distinguish it from page-authoring tools like compose_page or insert_html_section.

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?

Explains the source (a template section from the library, via list_template_sections), the target (an existing page), the insertion position (after afterSectionId, else before the form/footer), and mode selection (auto applies live on a published page, draft keeps a draft). It does not explicitly exclude sibling alternatives such as insert_html_section, keeping it below a 5.

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