write_section

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The phrase 'Same push semantics as write_file' references an external sibling's behavior without explaining what that entails (e.g., push to remote, commit creation, permission needs). The mutation aspect is implied by 'Replace', but side effects, reversibility, and response behavior are not disclosed.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. It is efficient, but the 'same push semantics as write_file' reference, while concise, relies on external knowledge and could be considered vague if the sibling description is not inspected.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations. The description does not explain prerequisites, push semantics, parameter constraints, or what happens on success/failure. It is too incomplete for a mutation tool with significant side-effect potential.

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 40%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented filePath, sectionTitle, and newContent parameters. It does not explain these parameters, sectionTitle matching semantics, or how newContent relates to the preserved heading. The phrase 'section body' adds minimal context but does not clarify parameter usage.

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 ('Replace') and a clear resource ('one LaTeX section body'), with an important scoping detail ('preserving the heading'). This clearly distinguishes it from write_file, which targets whole files, and from read-oriented siblings like get_sections.

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 intended use is implied: replace a LaTeX section body while preserving its heading. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus write_file or other siblings, and no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided. The reference to 'same push semantics as write_file' hints at shared behavior but does not clarify selection.

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