Add a new section to a SharePoint Online page by choosing a layout template and optional background emphasis, structuring content on the specified site and page.
Add a new section to a page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | ||
| siteId | Yes | ||
| emphasis | No | Background emphasis (color/contrast) | |
| sectionTemplate | Yes | Layout template for the section |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Add a new section' minimally implies an additive, non-destructive mutation, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether the page must be unpublished or connected first, or how the new section is positioned relative to existing ones.
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?
A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of missing context the agent needs.
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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. It should at minimum cover prerequisites and the sectionTemplate/emphasis options it accepts.
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 only 50%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not explain siteId/pageId (undocumented in the schema) or add any meaning beyond the enum descriptions already present for sectionTemplate and emphasis, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a clear verb+resource combination ('Add a new section to a page'), so the agent knows the operation and target. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools that also add page content (add_text_webpart, add_image_webpart, add_spacer, add_divider), leaving the section-vs-webpart distinction to inference.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling 'add_*' content tools, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing an existing page or site. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.