create_view_section

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

Annotations are minimal (only readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the description carries some burden. It reveals the return of a vsc-prefixed section ID, indicating a non-destructive write operation. However, it lacks details on error conditions, validation, or side effects beyond creation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It provides essential information without redundancy.

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 simple creation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return value, and a hint about the next tool. It is nearly complete but would benefit from explicitly stating that the section is created in the specified table (implied by parameters).

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, thus baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Create'), resource ('new sidebar section'), and scope ('in a table'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'move_view_to_section' by suggesting its use for populating, avoiding confusion.

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 explicitly advises to use 'move_view_to_section' to populate the section with views, providing clear next steps. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or any prerequisites (e.g., table existence).

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