update-channel-section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the full-replace behavior and the safety mechanism of reading first to preserve omitted fields, which is crucial for an agent to know. It also discloses the quota cost (50 units). However, it doesn't mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects like how to clear a field.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, behavioral caveat, and cost. There is zero fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, and cost, but with no output schema or annotations, it leaves out return value expectations and error/permission context. For a mutation tool with one required parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'reads the current section first so omitted fields aren't blanked' reinforces what each parameter description already says ('unchanged if omitted'), but doesn't add new parameter-level semantics. It doesn't explain types or formats 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's function: 'Update an existing channel section.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (channel section), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create-channel-section and delete-channel-section. The additional detail about full-replace on snippet/contentDetails further clarifies the scope.

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 provides context on when to use it (updating existing channel sections) and explains the read-first behavior to handle partial updates. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over create/delete/list operations.

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