engi_doc_patch_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Patch' without explaining side effects, whether modification is in-place, or what happens to existing content. Crucial behavioral traits (e.g., that operation modifies the file) are implied but not explicitly stated.

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 states the core purpose. However, it is overly minimal and does not earn its place by providing additional context; it could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 4 required, an enum operation, and no output schema), the description fails to explain essential aspects like the effect of different operations, the format of heading_path, the role of dry_run, or the return value. The description is too sparse for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 only 17% (only 'root' described). The tool description adds no explanation for any of the six parameters, including critical ones like 'operation', 'heading_path', and 'dry_run'. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions for 83% of parameters.

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 specifies the action ('Patch') and the resource ('Markdown section by heading path'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like engi_doc_create (create full doc) and engi_frontmatter_patch (patch frontmatter only). However, 'patch' is somewhat vague without elaboration of the operation parameter.

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 engi_doc_patch_section vs engi_doc_create or engi_frontmatter_patch. No context is given about prerequisites or scenarios.

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