Update Article Section

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

The description discloses that the server fetches the current body, replaces the targeted section, and PUTs the full reconstructed body. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations, which already indicate destructive and idempotent nature. However, it doesn't mention error handling or side effects beyond format artifacts.

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 concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then provides essential usage details. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 parameter count and annotations, the description covers the core process and format nuances. It lacks details on return values (no output schema) and potential errors, but for a mutation tool with good annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: explains default format, provides warning about markdown round-tripping, clarifies that heading is preserved and section_index is 0-based, referencing get_article_outline. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it replaces the content of a single section in a given locale, distinguishing it from tools like update_article or update_article_translation that affect the whole article or translation. It is specific about the verb 'Replace' and resource 'section of an article'.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (replacing a single section) and offers explicit guidance on format selection, warning against markdown for complex content. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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