update_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 of behavioral disclosure. It confirms update is a mutation, but it doesn't state whether this saves immediately vs. drafts, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like (especially relevant since publish_document must be called afterward, implying this may only stage changes). The requirement to call publish_document hints at behavior but doesn't explain the state transition.

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 compact two-sentence definition with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and attaches the workflow caveats efficiently. Well-sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool is a straightforward update operation with simple parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential workflow (fetch IDs, update, publish). However, given no annotations exist, it could benefit from disclosing the mutation's side effects and whether this requires editing permissions or draft staging.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds minor context by mentioning that section_id comes from list_document_sections (already stated in the schema description) but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Content is described as 'New HTML content' in the schema, which is self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Update the content of an existing IT Glue document section') that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like create_document_section and delete_document_section through the word 'update' but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 helpful guidance on the workflow: use list_document_sections to get section IDs first, and call publish_document after editing. It implies the proper usage sequence but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative choices for edge cases.

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