paper_write_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the return shape (small receipt plus updated outline, not the whole document). However, it omits failure behavior when a heading is absent and create=false, and says nothing about permissions or reversibility of the replace operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste, front-loading the core action and the output expectation. Slightly under-elaborated, but nothing redundant.

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?

Return behavior is covered despite no output schema, which is valuable. But for a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and half the params undocumented, the description leaves too much (name, level, insert anchoring, create fallback) unaddressed.

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 50%, so the description must compensate; it clarifies content (markdown body, no heading line) and names the three modes. It leaves the undocumented 'name' parameter, 'level', and the after/before interplay for insert entirely unexplained.

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?

States specific verbs (replace, append, insert) and the resource (a section), plus a scoping detail that content is markdown without the heading. It does not explicitly differentiate from paper_write_abstract or paper_read_section, so an agent must infer that this is the generic section writer.

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 three modes are listed, implying when one might be used, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing replace vs append vs insert, no prerequisites (e.g., create=true needed for new headings), and no mention of the paper_write_abstract alternative.

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