update_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses shallow-merge semantics and the important trait that whole list fields are replaced rather than appended, which is non-obvious and critical. It does not cover all potential side effects, but it highlights the most safety-relevant behavior.

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 tight sentences with the key behavioral caveat front-loaded after the core definition. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant wording.

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 that an output schema exists and the three parameters are minimal, the description covers the most essential operational detail: shallow merge with list replacement. It does not explain selection semantics of slug/section_id in depth, but those are reasonably inferable from their names and the 'existing section' framing.

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 33%, with patch_fields documented in the schema. The tool description adds meaning to patch_fields by explaining shallow merge and list replacement, but slug and section_id remain undocumented beyond their names, leaving a moderate 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 specific operation ('shallow-merge fields') on a specific resource ('an existing section'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly redirecting list-additions to add_flashcards or add_resources.

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?

Clearly implies use for patching existing sections and explicitly warns against using it for appending lists, naming alternatives. It lacks a fuller when-to-use/not-use distinction with other update-like siblings, but the critical routing guidance is present.

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