set_section_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about required permissions, whether edits are reversible, or what happens to unmentioned properties; only the schema hints at merge behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the mutation, and the two editable aspects with no filler. Size is appropriate for the tool's modest surface.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits merge semantics, error behavior, and permission requirements. The agent would need to open the schema to call it safely.

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 67%, and the description echoes the sectionType values (SECTION | VIEWPORT) plus the raw sectionProperties concept, adding some value. However nodeId is undocumented in both schema and description, and no format/syntax detail is added 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Edit properties of an existing SECTION node') with the scope qualifier 'existing' that separates it from create_section. An agent can tell this mutates an existing section, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like create_section, set_instance_properties, or bulk_update, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose sentence.

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