web_insert_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the insert action. It does not disclose that this is a destructive/mutating operation, that it requires an expected_rev (optimistic concurrency, stale revisions refuse), or what happens to sibling nodes at the insertion point. The concurrency behavior is only discoverable from the schema field description.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a five-parameter mutating tool.

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 schema is fully self-documenting (including the stale-revision rule in expected_rev) and there is no output schema to explain, so the agent can still call this correctly. However, for a five-required-parameter mutation with zero annotations, the one-sentence description leaves behavioral context thin.

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 all five parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The phrase 'relative to a parent node' loosely ties parent_id and position together, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Insert a <section> fragment') and identifies the anchor ('relative to a parent node'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from sibling mutators like web_move, web_set_text, or web_set_attr.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite note, and no routing to alternatives (e.g. when to insert a section vs. use web_move or web_set_text). The agent must infer applicability purely from the name and schema.

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