edit_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the section-marker mechanism and the two operational modes (component+props vs html). However, it does not disclose whether the replacement is a permanent file modification, what happens to existing content, or any side effects like index shifting. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, context, discovery method, and the two replacement modes. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core usage but omits important details such as whether the file is modified in-place, what the return value is, and how section indices behave after edits. The mention of list_sections hints at dynamic indices but does not explicitly warn about index instability. This leaves gaps for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds key semantic value by clarifying that component+props is the re-rendering path while html is for raw insertion, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also ties section_index to the list_sections discovery step, giving operational context beyond the schema's bare description.

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: 'Replace a rendered section in an HTML file with a new component.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing section markers and the two replacement modes (component+props vs raw HTML), and directs users to list_sections for discovery. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: it applies to pages rendered with render_page, and it explicitly instructs users to 'Use list_sections to discover available indices.' It also explains the choice between component+props and raw html. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., in favor of patch_html for non-section edits), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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