add_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the document is 'updated in place', indicating a mutation, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether existing content is preserved, or any side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 simple append operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core behavior (append, in-place update) and required parameters. Minor gap: no mention of return value, but as a void operation this is acceptable.

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 mentions 'heading + body content' which maps to heading and content parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema definitions. No extra context for filePath or headingLevel.

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 action ('Append') and resource ('existing .docx document'), specifying it adds a section with heading and body content. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_document (which creates new files) and add_table (which adds tables not sections).

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 adding a section to an existing document but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like add_table. It does specify 'to the end', providing some context, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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