Update IT Glue Document Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral details beyond those: content replaces the whole HTML, unkept <img> tags are lost, and base64/data URIs and S3 URLs are stripped by IT Glue. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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 four focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately covers partial updates, destructive HTML replacement, and the image-upload workflow. Every sentence earns its place and contributes either selection or invocation guidance.

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 7-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors thoroughly: whole-HTML replacement, image-tag preservation, section-type immutability, and URL constraints. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the response_format parameter and schema already indicate output choices. A small note on what the response contains would make it fully complete.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful value on top. It clarifies the content parameter's replacement semantics, warning to preserve existing image tags, and maps the field list to the affecting parameters. It does not add much beyond what the schema already states for level, duration, or sort, but the content-related nuance justifies above baseline.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a section') and enumerates exactly which fields change: content, heading level, duration, or position. It also explicitly states what it cannot do ('the section type cannot be changed'), which distinguishes it from create/delete/get section tools. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear operational context: fetch current content before updating, and use itglue_create_document_image for adding pictures. It also names the sibling shortcut (append_to_section_id) for the image workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with broader siblings like itglue_update_document or state when not to use this tool beyond the section-type limitation.

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