Update Section

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: PATCH-style partial-merge semantics ('Only the fields you pass change') and a concrete quota cost of 51 units, which the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the one non-obvious semantic rule plus the quota cost. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus the schema carry most of the load. Still, for a destructive mutation tool the description omits permission requirements and what 'change' does to fields not passed when replacing lists, leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, so all six parameters (section, title, channels, position, playlists, my_channel) are already documented in the schema, including accepted ID/handle/URL formats. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a section on your channel's home page'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations add_section and delete_section. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says to prefer add_section for creation or delete_section for removal, nor does it state any prerequisite such as the section already existing or the required auth scope.

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