Create a form section

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description meaningfully adds detail: it warns that the operation 'may notify recipients or change tenant data', notes open fields in the body, and states the one-section-per-request constraint. This goes well beyond the structured annotation hints.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, then gives the essential body constraint, field list, reference, and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place; the field enumeration is justified because the body schema is generic. No filler or redundancy is present.

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?

Despite having no output schema and a complex open body, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: endpoint, required path parameter implied by the URL, body shape, field names, the confirm requirement, operator opt-in, side effects, and a documentation reference. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by enumerating the allowed body field names in a schema where body is otherwise a generic JSON payload. It also clarifies that section-specific and Incident Details fields remain open. It does not explain the meaning of each field, so it does not reach 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a form section'), and reinforces it with the exact endpoint POST /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}/sections. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like xmatters_get_form_sections or xmatters_create_a_plan_form, even without explicitly naming them.

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 gives clear operational context: it targets a specific form, accepts one section per request, and requires confirm:true plus operator write opt-in. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not/exclusion' guidance but is otherwise clear.

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