Update Review section

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds context about the resource being a 'section marker' in an 'in-progress owned review session,' which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether current_section can be null, what constraints exist on section values, or side effects. The description is not contradicting annotations, but it adds limited extra transparency.

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 a single concise sentence (13 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning without redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain what valid section values are, the effect of setting current_section to null, or what the return value might be. While the tool is simple, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional implicit knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'current section marker' which roughly maps to the current_section parameter, but does not explain session_id or clarify the meaning of current_section values, including the nullable option. The description provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource: 'the current section marker of an in-progress owned review session.' This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_review, abandon_review, or start_review. The addition of 'in-progress owned' adds useful 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 implies usage for in-progress owned review sessions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides context ('in-progress owned') but no direct comparison with sibling tools, so while usage is implied, guidance is not explicit.

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