add-sections

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

The description adds minimal behavior context by saying 'new sections', clarifying that the tool creates rather than updates. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so agents know it's a write operation; the description does not go beyond that with details on idempotency, permissions, or error behavior.

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, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the action and target. There is no unnecessary information or redundancy.

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 creation tool with a well-defined schema and output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose and accepts multiple sections, while details like the optional project ID 'inbox' are handled in the schema. The lack of usage alternatives is a minor gap.

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% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but it is not necessary given the schema's thorough documentation of 'sections', 'name', 'projectId', and 'description'.

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 'Add one or more new sections to projects' clearly states the verb (add), resource (sections), and target (projects). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find-sections and update-sections by using 'new' to imply creation, but does not explicitly contrast with 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update-sections, add-projects, or add-tasks. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name and context.

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