dashy_update_section

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects itself. It does so by explaining that only given fields change and that nested arrays are replaced wholesale—critical behavioral details for a mutation tool. It does not mention persistence or error cases, but the disclosed semantics are substantial.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core operation, the second clarifies the edge case of nested arrays. No filler or repetition.

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 description covers the main merge semantics and selection method but omits the purpose of `filename`, behavior when a section is not found, and whether changes are immediately persisted. Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is not needed, but these other gaps prevent a higher score.

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?

The description adds meaning to `sid` (index or exact name) and clarifies the merge behavior of `patch`. However, the `filename` parameter is not explained, which is a gap given that schema description coverage is 0%.

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 states the action precisely: shallow-merging `patch` into a section, with explicit mention of identification by index or exact name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `dashy_add_section`, `dashy_delete_section`, and `dashy_get_section`.

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 clearly implies the tool is for partial updates of an existing section via shallow merge, which is a distinct use case. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., 'use add_section for new sections'), so it falls short of full guidance.

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