create_section

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the default insertion position ('before END'), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose side effects, revision requirements, or consequences beyond creation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key placement detail, though 'normally' is slightly vague and could be more precise.

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 tool with five parameters, destructive behavior, and an output schema, this description is too thin. It omits guidance on parameter relationships, revision handling, and when creation might be inappropriate. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still does not provide enough operational context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at program/section context and the before_section default. It does not explain required parameters like project_id, program_name, section_name, or expected_revision beyond what the schema itself already provides.

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 states the specific action ('Create a program section') and a distinguishing placement detail ('normally immediately before END'). It clearly identifies the resource and differentiates it from section-related siblings like delete_section or rename_section, though it does not explicitly acknowledge those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'normally immediately before END' implies a common usage context, but it does not explain when create_section is preferred over other structural editing tools like insert_rung or replace_rung.

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