vibo_update_section

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes permission requirements ('Subject to the section's host-edit permissions') and the confirm-gating behavior (implies a two-step process). This complements the readOnlyHint=false annotation without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the purpose, permissions, and confirm-gating without any extraneous content. Every sentence is necessary.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides essential info (permissions, confirm-gating) but omits details about the preview behavior, expected response, or error conditions. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description enumerates editable fields but adds no extra semantic details (e.g., format, constraints) for undocumented parameters like 'name' and 'description'. For a low-coverage scenario, the description insufficiently compensates.

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 the action ('Edit') and the resource ('a timeline section') and lists the editable fields (name, time, note, description). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vibo_comment_on_section by focusing on updating section properties rather than commenting.

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 provides usage context: it is subject to host-edit permissions and is confirm-gated (requires confirm parameter to execute, otherwise previews). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternative tools (e.g., for different section operations).

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