Create Action Plan Section

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that calling it again creates another record (matching idempotentHint=false), describes the HTTP 201 response with new id, and lists common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains the view parameter behavior, which annotations do not cover.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by view options, payload handling, defaults, idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description covers essential invocation details: required parameters, view options, project_id default, non-idempotent behavior, and error scenarios. It omits the 'ids' view option present in the schema enum, but that is a minor gap given the coverage of normal and extended views.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds important semantics: fields are passed as top-level arguments and nested into 'plan_section' payload automatically, and project_id defaults to config value. It also clarifies the extended view returns nested plan_items array, which goes beyond the schema's truncated description.

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 clearly states it creates an Action Plan Section for a given Action Plan, using the specific verb 'Creates' and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_action_plan_section or list_action_plan_sections, but the action is unambiguous from the name and context.

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 usage context is implied: you need an existing action plan (plan_id) and a title. It does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or mention sibling tools for related operations. The mention of project_id default from config gives some context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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