update_meeting_section

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: partial-update semantics, a version prerequisite, the closed-meeting rejection, and that agenda items move with the section. It does not describe the preview/apply response shape, though the confirm parameter carries that.

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 verb+resource and the partial-update rule are front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing sentences are choppy and slightly redundant ("for the backlog section" then "backlog cannot be changed"), costing a point.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, failure modes, partial-update behavior and what the operation does not touch. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds meaning: "omitted fields stay unchanged" explains the optionality of title/position, and "backlog cannot be changed after creation; this tool does not accept it" preempts an agent inventing a backlog parameter.

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 pair and resource: "Rename or move a meeting section" plus the partial-update rule "omitted fields stay unchanged." This distinguishes it cleanly from create_meeting_section, delete_meeting_section and get_meeting_section without needing the schemas.

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?

Gives concrete when-not conditions: requires OpenProject 17.6+, is rejected while the meeting is closed, and is rejected for the backlog section. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. update_meeting_agenda_item) for cases where the agent actually wants to move agenda items rather than the section itself.

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