phpipam.sections.ensure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses required environment variables and the core behavior ('create if missing'), but does not clarify behavior when the section already exists (e.g., idempotent no-op), error handling if prerequisites are unmet, or return value. This is partial transparency for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Ensure a section exists') and adds a critical prerequisite. No wasted words; every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage conditions.

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 tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), but the description omits details like idempotent behavior, response format, or interaction with parent sections. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context (e.g., 'returns section ID' or 'no-op if exists') would improve completeness.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description ('Section name', 'Section description', 'Parent section ID'). The tool description adds no extra parameter nuance, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The schema carries the parameter meaning sufficiently.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Ensure a section exists (create if missing).' This clearly indicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from list/get tools, though it does not explicitly mention sibling tools as alternatives. The wording is unambiguous and focuses on creation/verification.

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 implies usage when a section needs to be created if absent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list or get. It provides a prerequisite condition (environment variables) that serves as guidance, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.

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