Update Section

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by specifying the return payload ('updated section object with gid and name'), but does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling or permission requirements. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential details: the operation, the return value, and a pointer to the sibling tool. No waste.

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 rename tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and an alternative. It gives enough context for correct selection and invocation, though edge-case behavior is not discussed.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for 'name', 'section_gid', and 'opt_fields'. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already contains; the baseline of 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 opens with 'Rename an existing section,' which precisely identifies the action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the related 'asana_move_section' by noting that reordering is a separate concern.

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?

It explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'To reorder sections, use asana_move_section instead.' This gives clear guidance for a key distinguishability point, though it does not enumerate all possible section-related tools.

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