Create IT Glue Document Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: Heading requires level 1-6, Gallery has no content, Step has optional duration, and IT Glue strips base64/data and S3 URLs while allowing public https images. It also warns that attachments never render in the body. This is rich, non-obvious behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 core action is front-loaded and the type breakdown is compact. The IMAGES paragraph is somewhat long and dense, but every sentence carries useful behavioral information. It could be tightened, but there is no wasted text or 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 complex 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all four section types, conditional parameter requirements, the Gallery follow-up path, image embedding rules, and attachment behavior. The remaining parameter details are well covered by the schema, and the description even implies that the section response exposes document_gallery_id for later image uploads.

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 100%, so the baseline is already strong, but the description adds valuable conditional semantics: level is required specifically for Heading, duration applies only to Step, and Gallery accepts no content. It also explains how content relates to the image upload workflow and inline_resource_url. The description meaningfully extends the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Add a section to a document', and enumerates the four section types, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like itglue_create_document and itglue_create_document_image by naming them in the workflow. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear conditional usage: Gallery sections are followed by itglue_create_document_image, and Text/Step images require prior upload via itglue_create_document_image. It does not explicitly contrast with update/delete/list section siblings, but the creation context and workflow pointers are strong. The guidance about image URL formats also helps the agent decide how to supply content.

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