create_document_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a create/mutation operation (implied by 'Add'), and the publish_document follow-up hints at the persistence model (changes aren't live until published). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether this returns the created section, errors on invalid document_id, or whether it requires specific permissions. With zero annotations, a 3 is reasonable.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. First sentence states the purpose and section types; second sentence gives the critical follow-up workflow instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 create tool with 3 simple parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The publish_document follow-up handles the key workflow gap. It could note that heading vs text sections have different rendering implications, but that's arguably beyond scope for a concise description.

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%, meaning all 3 parameters already have descriptions in the JSON schema. The tool description adds the section_type class mappings (Document::Heading / Document::Text) which go slightly beyond the schema, but not substantially. The content parameter's 'HTML content' semantic is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb (Add) + resource (section to an IT Glue document) and distinguishes it from siblings (update_document_section, delete_document_section, publish_document). It also specifies the two supported section types with their internal class mappings, which is highly specific and useful.

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 explicitly instructs calling publish_document after editing, which is a clear usage guideline. It implies this is an editing workflow step. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or reference alternatives like update_document_section, but the publish instruction provides important workflow context.

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