write_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states style and citation requirement. It does not disclose whether the tool overwrites or appends, requires a manuscript context, or has any side effects. Critical behavioral aspects like mutation, permissions, or rate limits are absent.

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 focused sentence plus a list of sections, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., written text) and whether it modifies an existing manuscript. The agent lacks key context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 40%, and the description adds minimal value: it lists section options already in the enum but does not explain word_count_target or language. The description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions on 3 of 5 parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'write' and the resource 'specific section of manuscript', and enumerates the exact sections available. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_literature or format_references_apa7 by focusing on writing content.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for editing vs. writing new sections), no when-not-to-use advice, and no mention of prerequisites like an existing manuscript.

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