create_document_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key detail that publishing is required after editing, implying changes are not visible until then. But it omits other behavioral traits such as whether the section is appended, what the return value is, and any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core action, type constraints, and required follow-up are all conveyed in about 25 words.

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 operation and the publish dependency, but with no output schema it does not explain the return value. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., document must exist) and insertion behavior, leaving moderate gaps for a 3-parameter creation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the enum mapping for section_type (heading to Document::Heading, text to Document::Text) but adds little beyond the schema, which already describes content as HTML and provides the same enum explanation.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Add a new section to an IT Glue document,' clearly identifying the resource and operation. It also names the two section types, distinguishing this tool from siblings like update_document_section, delete_document_section, and list_document_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?

It clearly states when to use the tool (when creating a new section) and provides a critical follow-up instruction ('Call publish_document after editing'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on sibling tool names for that distinction.

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