rsap_define_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key prerequisite (database active, profile exists) and a behavioral default (db_section defaults to name). However, it does not explain side effects such as whether an existing label is overwritten, nor does it describe error behavior if the profile is missing or the database is inactive, which limits transparency.

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 appropriately structured: a clear first sentence stating the purpose, a second sentence for the prerequisite, and a concise Args list. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but contains no fluff and is easy to scan. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could potentially be left to the schema if the schema had descriptions.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite, and all parameter meanings. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but for a definition tool with a simple API, the provided information is largely complete. The only gap is the lack of detail on failure modes or side effects, which prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% schema coverage), but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter: name, db_section (with default behavior), and material (optional). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles, clearly defining the role and default of each parameter, and even offers a usage clue ('often the profile name itself').

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 tool's function: defining a bar section label by loading a profile from Robot's section database. It uses specific verbs (define, loading) and a specific resource (bar section label), and provides concrete examples of profile types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rsap_list_sections or rsap_assign_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 usage by stating the prerequisite that the section database must be active and contain the profile. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative tool suggestions. This is an implied usage scenario rather than explicit guidance.

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