update_section

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

No annotations provided. The description adds behavior: preserves header, replaces content only, and is markdown-aware. However, it lacks disclosure on error handling (e.g., missing section), side effects, or permission requirements.

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?

Single paragraph front-loaded with action, no redundant words. All sentences are informative and earn their place.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter details, and key behavior. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but for a simple update tool it is adequately 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% and description adds meaning: clarifies section_title excludes '#' prefixes, new_content excludes header, and name excludes .md extension. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 the tool replaces an entire Markdown section identified by header title, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like edit_note by emphasizing whole-section replacement and header preservation.

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 implies use for replacing entire sections without touching other parts, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like append_to_note or edit_note.

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