update_file_section

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: heading line preserved verbatim, case-insensitive exact match, throws if heading missing, persistence path (disk→FTS→git commit), no auth or rate limits, returns metadata.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, each sentence adding distinct value. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns the updated file metadata,' sufficient. Covers all contexts: purpose, error conditions, persistence, auth/rate limits, and usage alternatives.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond parameter descriptions: explains heading match is case-insensitive exact-string, content is new body, and heading line is preserved automatically. Slight extra value.

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 it is a 'surgical write' to replace the body of one heading, precisely distinguishing it from the sibling tool update_file which does full-file replacement. The verb 'replace' and resource 'heading body' are specific.

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?

Explicit guidance: use for targeted edits without re-sending whole body; for full-file replacement use update_file. Also states it will not create a new section, advising to use update_file first to append.

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