create_document_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that content is HTML and that the tool is a write/mutation operation (implied by 'Add'), and it references the publish workflow. However, it doesn't disclose whether sections must be published to be visible, what happens to unpublished changes, or whether there are limits on section count or size.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action statement, the section type enumeration, and the important post-edit workflow instruction. No filler or redundant content.

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 3-parameter creation tool, the description covers the essentials. The workflow hint about publish_document is valuable. However, there's no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the agent doesn't know what the response will contain or whether an ID is returned for the created section. The publish_document reference partially compensates, but the missing post-call behavior details leave a gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by noting that content is HTML and clarifying the section_type enum values map to class names, but it doesn't add meaningfully beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 verb ('Add'), the resource ('a new section to an IT Glue document'), and enumerates the two section types with their underlying class names ('heading' for Document::Heading, 'text' for Document::Text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_document_section and delete_document_section.

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 when to use it (when adding sections to documents) and gives explicit workflow context by telling the agent to call publish_document after editing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with update/delete siblings, but the guidance about publish_document provides clear usage context.

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