create_section

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'design-intelligent' without explaining what that means, how the content object is used, what gets created (frame, group, component), or what side-effects/defaults/return value to expect.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. The type enumeration is useful, though 'design-intelligent' is vague and not strictly informative.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested content object and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how parentId/content interact, what the tool returns, or what 'design-intelligent' behavior will be applied to the section.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description largely repeats the type list from the schema and omits 'newsletter'; it adds no new parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'design-intelligent'.

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 a specific action ('Create') and a resource ('design-intelligent page section'), and enumerates the section types it supports. It is clear enough to differentiate from generic shape-creation tools like create_rectangle, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from create_footer or create_header.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings. Since create_footer, create_header, and create_nav_bar exist, an agent has no basis for choosing create_section for a 'footer' request without additional inference.

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