update_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only conveys that some mutation occurs. It does not state whether fields are replaced wholesale, whether omitted fields are left unchanged, or what happens after the update.

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?

Three words is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The sentence is short but not front-loaded with useful information because it only restates the tool name.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description omits update semantics such as partial versus full replacement or whether section_id is the only required identifier. Although the schema fully documents parameters, the description leaves an agent guessing about the mutation behavior.

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% and each parameter has a clear description, so the schema already documents name, section_id, and description. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 is a bare restatement of the tool name — 'Update a section' adds no information beyond the name itself. It does not say what aspects of a section can be updated or how this differs from add_section, move_section, or delete_section.

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 update_section versus sibling tools such as add_section or move_section. The only implied usage is 'when a section already exists,' but no explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.

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