update_library_sections_by_section_id

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

Annotations already disclose idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the PUT method and parameter-level semantics, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, nor what happens to omitted fields—key behavioral context not covered by 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 compact and well-organized: a single purpose statement, the HTTP method/path, and a clearly formatted Args list. There is no redundant prose, and each line serves a distinct function.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters and only section_id required, it is critical to know whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or reset to defaults/null. The description never states the update semantics, and the phrase 'locations... to add' hints at additive behavior without confirming replacement vs append. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but this core usage ambiguity makes the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides one-line meanings for all 8 parameters, adding genuine value beyond the bare property titles. Some definitions are terse or ambiguous ('name: The name of the new section' is odd for an update; 'prefs: The preferences' is vague), but overall it compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Edit a library section.' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The URL path and field list further specify the scope, distinguishing this generic settings update from more specific sibling tools like update_library_sections_by_section_id_move or _prefs, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many update_library_sections_by_section_id_* siblings. Since several siblings overlap (e.g., prefs, all, edit), the agent is left to infer which tool is appropriate for a given request.

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