research_update_section

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

There are no annotations to disclose safety or side effects, and the description does not describe any behavioral traits beyond the basic update action. It does not mention whether the update is reversible, whether existing data is replaced or appended, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with no filler words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient and exactly as concise as needed for a simple tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a 'research section' is, how status transitions work, whether notes are required or optional, or how this fits into the research workflow (e.g., after research_create_plan). The schema provides parameter names but the description lacks contextual guidance for an agent to use the tool appropriately.

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%, with each parameter (notes, status, section, sessionId) having a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It could have provided extra context on parameter relationships or status transitions but did not.

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 'update' and the resource 'research section' with the focus on 'status', distinguishing it from sibling tools like research_add_note (notes) and research_get_status (reading status). Although brief and without explicit alternatives, the purpose is clear and specific within the research tool family.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationship to other research tools such as research_create_plan or research_get_status. The usage is only implied by the verb 'update', offering no explicit context.

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