update-sections

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the batching and scope idea ('multiple existing sections'), but it does not disclose what happens for nonexistent IDs, partial failures, or whether omitted optional fields are preserved or cleared.

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. The phrase 'new values' is slightly generic, but overall the description is appropriately concise for the tool's simple parameter shape.

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 batch mutation tool, this is only minimally complete: the schema covers the inputs and the annotation covers destructiveness, but the description does not clarify what happens if one of the section ids is invalid or whether omitted fields are left unchanged. This is important context for a destructive batch operation.

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 100%, and the input schema already explains the sections array, id, name, and description clearing semantics. The description adds little param-level value beyond what the schema 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 names a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing sections'), and it conveys the batch nature ('multiple'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as add-sections and find-sections.

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 implies the tool should be used to modify existing sections, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like add-sections for creation or find-sections for discovery. The usage guidance is therefore only implicit.

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