create_section

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

The description discloses the return shape ('Returns { ok, nodeId, name, type }') and placement constraints ('Sections sit on a page or nest inside another section, but not inside a frame'), adding value beyond the basic readOnly/destructive flags. It doesn't mention error conditions, but for a create operation this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, starting with the action and resource, then adding placement rules and return value. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple create tool, the description covers purpose, placement constraints, alternative tool, and return shape. Combined with full schema coverage and consistent annotations, the agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All 6 parameters are already described in the schema with clear semantics (e.g., 'Parent page or section id (default: current page)'), so the description doesn't need to restate them. It doesn't add extra parameter detail, but the schema fully covers it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 begins with 'Create a section' and defines it as 'a canvas-level container for grouping and labelling regions of a page', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from create_frame by explicitly saying 'for a UI container or auto-layout use create_frame instead', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the use case ('grouping and labelling regions of a page') and the exclusion ('not inside a frame'), and points to an alternative tool ('use create_frame instead'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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