aa_upsert_section

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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructiveness, and write behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral detail, that replaced scaffold placeholders are pruned, but it does not explain update semantics, how optional fields like table or freshness interact, or what the result looks like.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though this brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with a nested table object and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, and any explanation of how updates merge with existing section content.

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 schema has eight parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description gives no parameter-level meaning at all. It does not clarify required claims, workspace, id, body, detail, or freshness, nor the nested table object, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: add or update a report section. It implies the section-level counterpart to aa_upsert_claim and aa_upsert_diagram, but it never names or explicitly distinguishes those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus aa_upsert_claim, aa_upsert_diagram, or other siblings, nor any prerequisites such as whether a run must be started first. The only operational note is a side-effect statement about pruning placeholders.

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