create_view_section

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

Annotations are all false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds that the tool returns a vsc-prefixed ID, which is useful. However, it does not discuss side effects (e.g., whether duplicate names are allowed), error conditions, or other traits beyond the return value. Given low annotation detail, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states purpose and return value, second gives actionable advice. No redundant words.

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's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, return, and usage flow. It could mention the debug parameter or error scenarios, but with full schema coverage, the gaps are minor. A score of 4 reflects good completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It stays within the schema's explanations.

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 action ('Create a new sidebar section in a table') and the resource ('sidebar section'). It specifies the return value (vsc-prefixed ID) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_view' and 'move_view_to_section' by mentioning the next step.

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 tells the agent to use 'move_view_to_section' to populate the section, providing clear follow-up guidance. It does not enumerate when not to use the tool, but the context from sibling names and the description itself is sufficient for decision-making.

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