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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: that only the supplied fields are transmitted and that they overwrite existing values, which tells the agent the operation is partial rather than full replacement. It does not state reversibility or permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One compact sentence plus the endpoint path; the mutation mode and overwrite semantics are front-loaded before the HTTP route. The raw endpoint adds marginal value for an agent but is not wasteful enough to drop below 4.

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 destructive mutation the description covers what is changed and how partial payloads behave, which is the essential part. It is silent on failure modes (invalid section_id), required permissions, and — since there is no output schema — what the call returns, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents proposal_id, section_id, description and sectiontype. The description adds no field-level meaning and leaves 'name' and 'category' (which lack schema descriptions) unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 names a specific verb (change/update) and a specific resource (a section of a proposal), and the 'WRITE:' prefix immediately signals mutation. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by scoping to a proposal section rather than a template section, though it never names update_section or add_proposal_section as alternatives.

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 partial-update rule ('only the fields you pass are sent and overwrite the old values') is useful usage context for calling the tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus bidsketch_update_section or bidsketch_add_proposal_section, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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