page_update_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait - macro-preserving {{atlas:N}} tokens must be retained - but says nothing about reversibility, whether nested sub-sections are affected, or what happens if the heading is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation stated first and the critical caveat second; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 destructive write with zero annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the highest-risk failure mode (macro token destruction) but omits heading-not-found behavior, sub-section handling, and result confirmation. Adequate to call safely, not complete.

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 coverage is only 50%, with 'heading' and 'markdown' undocumented in the schema; the description compensates by framing heading as the section anchor and markdown as the replacement format with token-preservation rules. It leaves the optional 'site' versus 'url' relationship unaddressed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and targeted resource: 'Replace the content under a heading with markdown'. The section-scoped replacement is clearly a different operation from whole-page editing, though it never names page_edit or page_append explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'replace ... under a heading' - an agent can infer this is for swapping one section's body rather than appending or rewriting a whole page. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among page_edit/page_append.

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