bidsketch_update_sectionWRITE: change a saved section; only the fields you pass are sent. Proposals that already use it keep their own copy. PUT /sections/{id}.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| section_id | Yes | The saved section id (a positive integer). | |
| description | No | HTML-formatted content, for example <p>Hello</p>. | |
| sectiontype | No | Where the section appears: opening (first) or closing (last). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, adding two genuine behavioral facts: the update is partial (unpassed fields are untouched) and existing proposals retain their own copy of the section. It does not state irreversibility, permission requirements, or what an invalid section_id produces, which is notable given destructiveHint=true.
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 clauses with the WRITE marker and the partial-update rule front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The endpoint string is minor informational padding but adds no real cost.
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?
A destructive mutation with no output schema needs more: no mention of permissions/scopes, failure behavior for a bad section_id, or whether the change can be undone. The copy-on-write note is valuable, but the definition stops short of complete for a write tool carrying destructiveHint=true.
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 60% – section_id, description, and sectiontype carry their own descriptions, while name and category are bare. The description's 'only the fields you pass are sent' adds meaningful semantics about how optional params behave, but it does not compensate for the undocumented name/category fields beyond what their names imply.
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 ('change a saved section') and front-loads the WRITE marker. The line 'Proposals that already use it keep their own copy' implicitly separates it from bidsketch_update_proposal_section, though that sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
No explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no named alternative among the many update_* siblings. Usage is only implied by the partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass are sent'), which tells the agent this is a PATCH-style call but not when to prefer it over bidsketch_update_proposal_section.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.