vibo_create_section

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: client-side 45-char validation before anything is sent, default placement behavior, the default visibility semantics ('Me and DJ'), the Vibo-side default that 'hosts can order songs' is off, the returned _id, and the full two-phase confirmation contract (preview + confirmToken, MCP_CONFIRM_MODE fallback). This is the kind of side-effect and interaction detail annotations alone (write, non-idempotent) cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and rich in information density; every clause carries semantic weight. It is a single dense run-on with several parentheticals, so slightly harder to scan than ideal, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter create tool with no output schema and a non-trivial confirmation flow, the description covers validation, placement defaults, visibility semantics, silent server-side defaults, the return value (_id), and the elicitation/confirmToken protocol. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the schema baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter resolution the schema does not spell out — what happens when neither afterSectionId nor position is supplied (append to end) — plus the operational note that 'note' is actually applied afterwards via updateSection.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new timeline section', and the scope (a section inside an event timeline) is instantly separable from sibling write tools like vibo_update_section, vibo_delete_section, and vibo_reorder_sections. An agent knows exactly what object is being produced without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear selection context for the placement parameters (afterSectionId vs position vs neither → append at end, mirroring the web app) and disambiguates visibility values. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over vibo_update_section or vibo_reorder_sections, so no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative.

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