Modify a form section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds specific side-effect context: 'may notify recipients or change tenant data', which goes beyond the general annotations. It also states the mutation requires 'confirm:true' and operator opt-in, which is essential behavioral disclosure. No contradictions with annotations.

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 somewhat long due to the field list, but that list is necessary for an open-world body. It front-loads the verb and resource, includes constraints, and ends with a reference URL. The density is justified by the unstructured schema, and there is no redundancy with annotations or schema.

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 write operation that can notify recipients and modify tenant data, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and a comprehensive field list. It also notes that only one section per request is allowed and type is immutable. The reference URL provides further depth. While an output schema is absent, the description does not need to explain return values per rules. Overall, it is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 75%, but the body field is an open-world anyOf, leaving the agent without structure. The description compensates by listing all possible body fields (id, form, title, type, etc.), which adds meaning beyond the schema. It also explains that 'confirm' must be true and references a documentation URL for full payload details. This is more than the schema alone provides.

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 ('Modify'), a resource ('a form section'), and the API endpoint. It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'xmatters_create_a_form_section' by implying modification of an existing section and explicitly noting that 'type cannot be modified.' This gives an agent enough to distinguish it from related tools without opening the schema.

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 operational context: POST to a specific URL, one section per request, and immutable 'type'. It mentions required prerequisites (operator write opt-in and confirm:true). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over creating a new section or other modification tools, though the purpose makes that reasonably inferable. The constraints and prerequisites are valuable guidance.

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