update_section

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key scoping behavior and the precedence rule (input_file overrides new_content). However, it leaves gaps: what happens if the heading appears multiple times or not at all, and whether the operation is atomic or reversible. These are meaningful behavioral ambiguities.

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?

The description is tightly written: a single lead sentence conveying the core action, followed by a clean argument list. Every line provides necessary information, and it avoids fluff. The structure makes it easy to scan and quickly grasp the tool's purpose and parameters.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, parameter semantics, and an important edge case (input_file override). It does not address error conditions like 'heading not found' or ambiguous headings, which would improve completeness. Overall, it is nearly complete for its complexity.

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?

The description compensates for the absence of schema parameter descriptions. It explains each of the six parameters, adds crucial detail for new_content (ignored if input_file is provided), and specifies allowed values/default for content_format. The brief definitions for page_id and heading are minimal but still provide basic semantic grounding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Surgically replace the content of a specific section by heading.' It uses a specific verb ('replace') and resource ('section'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that only the targeted section changes and the rest of the page remains untouched. This differentiates it from update_page (whole page) and append_to_section (append).

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 the proper use case: when you need to replace a single section identified by heading without affecting other content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'only the section...' phrasing provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. This is sufficient for a competent agent to select it over siblings.

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