set_hda_section_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full disclosure responsibility. It clearly discloses critical behavioral traits: only 'Help' and 'IconSVG' sections are allowed (case-sensitive exact match), all other sections result in 'section_write_denied' with zero writes, content is limited to 65536 UTF-8 bytes, and responses pass through 'apply_response_cap'. This goes beyond minimal disclosure, though it doesn't mention side effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise, using three compact lines to convey the core behavior and all critical constraints. Every sentence carries specific information (allowlist, section names, size limit, response cap) with no filler words or repetition.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers most essential context: what it does, which sections are permitted, content size limits, and response handling. However, the 'node_type' parameter is unexplained, and the meaning of 'apply_response_cap' is left for the reader to infer, leaving minor gaps in 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for two of three parameters: 'section' is restricted to Help/IconSVG with case-sensitive exact match, and 'content' has a UTF-8 byte limit of 65536. However, it does not explain 'node_type', leaving that parameter ambiguous.

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 tool writes a section ('allowlist 写入 section') and labels it as MUTATING, clearly indicating a write operation on HDA section content. The resource is implied by the tool name and the 'add-hda-management-tools' category, but it doesn't explicitly name 'HDA' in the description, so it's not fully specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hda_section_content or update_hda. It only lists constraints (allowed sections, content size) but does not state usage context or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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