Create Section

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns the created section object with gid and name, which is useful, and explains the visual manifestation of sections. However, it does not go beyond that to discuss authentication, rate limits, or error cases. The added value over annotations is modest, so a 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clarifying context and placement guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 create operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, what sections look like, and the return value. It omits explicit notes on mutual exclusivity of insert_before/insert_after, but that is already in the schema. Given the annotations and schema richness, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., name, project_gid, insert_after/before with mutual exclusivity). The description's mention of insert_before/insert_after for placement adds some conceptual guidance, but it largely mirrors what the schema already says. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is justified.

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 section in a project'), identifies the resource (a section within a project), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like asana_update_section or asana_delete_section. It also adds helpful context about what sections are (column headers in board view, group headers in list view), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 context on how to control section placement using insert_before or insert_after, which guides the agent on when to use these parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions. Still, the placement guidance is a solid usage hint.

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