scf_update_document_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the write nature ('write — editor role'), that content is replaced, and the key consequence that a later regeneration reports a conflict rather than silently overwriting the human layer. This is meaningful non-obvious behavior. It could go further with permissions or response expectations, but the most important behavioral trait is present.

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 tight sentences in ~30 words, with the action front-loaded in the first sentence and the behavioral consequence in the second. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and every clause earns its place. The structure maximizes the chance an agent reads the critical conflict behavior.

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 simple 4-parameter, all-required update tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: action, role, scope, and the non-obvious regeneration-conflict behavior. Minor gaps exist — no mention of return value, error conditions, or permission requirements beyond the implied 'editor role' — but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 fully documents org_id, document_id, section_id, and content, including the warning that section_id may contain slashes and must be passed exactly as returned. The description adds only marginal semantic flavor ('human edit') to the content parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Replace one section's content') with a clear subject and role ('human edit (write — editor role)'). The 'human edit' framing distinguishes it from read siblings like scf_get_document_section_generated and from scf_generate_documents, and the tracked-as-human-layer note separates it from a plain content mutation. An agent can tell what this does and what it is not without opening the schema.

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 a clear context for use: applying a human-authored edit to a section in the editor role. It implies when this tool is appropriate (any human edit that must be tracked) without explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it. It stops short of the explicit when/when-not routing that would earn a 5.

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