rsap_assign_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 for behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent that the section must already exist and how to specify bars, but it does not disclose whether the assignment overwrites existing section assignments, nor does it describe any errors or side effects. This is a moderate gap for a mutation 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section cleanly lists parameters with clear explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 two-parameter assignment tool, the description covers the core behavior and both parameters. It does not mention return values or behavior when the section does not exist, but given the straightforward nature of the tool and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete. A note on overwrite semantics would push it to a 5.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for either parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining both: section_name is 'a section label defined with rsap_define_section' and bars is 'Robot selection text, e.g. 1to20 or 1 2 3.' Both parameters are clearly documented, exceeding what the structured schema offers.

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: 'Assign an existing section label to a set of bars.' It specifies the resource (section label) and target (bars), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rsap_assign_material (which assigns material, not section). The reference to rsap_define_section also reinforces the domain.

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 the usage context: it assigns a section that must already exist (defined via rsap_define_section), and provides the bar selection syntax. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough to guide correct use among the sibling tools.

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