konsulto_replace_section

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

The description discloses that previous content is preserved on the audit trail (recoverable) and that content is markdown, which are important behavioral traits. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it covers the key behaviors well but could mention what happens if the section does not exist.

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 very concise with two front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, usage guidance, and key properties without unnecessary words.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and key behavioral details (recoverability, format). It is missing potential edge cases (e.g., what if section doesn't exist) but is sufficient for its simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 67% parameter description coverage (section and content are described, findingId is not). The description does not add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not compensate for the missing parameter description.

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 explicitly states 'Replace the entire prose under a named section' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool konsulto_append_to_section by advising to prefer appending unless rewriting is intended.

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?

It provides clear guidance: 'Prefer konsulto_append_to_section unless the user explicitly wants to rewrite the section,' directly telling the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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