supportpages_suggest_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real context beyond them: the result is a durable (async) operation, suggestions stay pending for review, and implicit acceptance/generation is disallowed. However, it does not explain what the analysis side effect actually touches, which leaves a mild tension with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the constraints. Efficient and readable, with only mild jargon ('durable operation') that slightly obscures meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile, but three of four parameters remain undocumented and the description never clarifies the analysis' effect on hosted content. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 25% (just request_id). The description says nothing about workspace, open_when_ready or prefer_background, so it fails to compensate for the documented-parameter gap on a 4-parameter tool.

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?

States an action ('Run hosted documentation analysis') and a return ('a durable operation'), but the phrasing is abstract and never maps cleanly onto 'suggest sections'. It does not differentiate from siblings such as supportpages_find_article_gaps, supportpages_recommend_articles or supportpages_list_recommendations, so the agent cannot confidently tell what unique purpose this serves.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' or named alternative. The prohibition ('Never analyse locally, accept suggestions automatically or generate articles implicitly') is a behavioral constraint rather than routing guidance, and no sibling is referenced to disambiguate it from the recommend/gap tools.

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