update_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions Markdown formatting support but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this operation requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on invalid section names, error responses, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and Markdown support. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The Markdown examples could be slightly more concise, but overall there's minimal wasted text.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation and formatting but lacks crucial context about permissions, error handling, side effects, and what the tool returns. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention return values, but it doesn't.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by repeating Markdown support information that's already in the 'content' parameter schema. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, constraints, or examples beyond what's in the structured schema.

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 'Update' and the resource 'an entire section of a memory document', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_list_item' by specifying it works on document sections rather than list items. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_memory' or 'get_section', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_memory' for new documents, 'get_section' for reading, or 'update_list_item' for list operations. It mentions Markdown support but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or when 'append' vs 'replace' mode is appropriate beyond the schema's default.

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