Directly write or replace the content of a specified section within an HDA definition by providing the node path, section name, and text content, enabling precise updates to asset definitions.
Write content to a specific section in an HDA definition.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path. section_name: Section name. content: Section content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| node_path | Yes | ||
| section_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Write content' implies mutation but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing content, whether the section must already exist, if there are permission requirements, or what happens on failure. There is no mention of side effects or reversibility.
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 extremely short (one sentence plus an args list) and is technically concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is not a case of efficient writing but of missing essential information, so it does not earn credit for conciseness.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or the format of 'content'. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional context.
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 0% and the description does not add any explanation for the three parameters (node_path, section_name, content). It merely lists their names without defining what they represent or what format content should be in. This fails to compensate for the lack of 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 states a specific action ('write content') and a specific resource ('a specific section in an HDA definition'). It is clear that this is a mutation tool for HDA sections. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_hda_section_content or explain what 'content' means in terms of format or structure, so it is not a 5.
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 alternatives. The sibling list includes get_hda_sections and get_hda_section_content, but no comparison or condition is given. Prerequisites such as the existence of the HDA or node are not mentioned, so an agent has no idea when this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.