create_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses idempotency by name, but does not mention what happens on success (return value), permission requirements, or error conditions. This leaves notable gaps beyond the idempotency note.

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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The action verb and resource are stated immediately, and the idempotency note is a bonus without bloat.

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 create operation with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains creation and idempotency, but does not specify return values, failure modes, or permission requirements. Given the tool's moderate complexity, more context would be helpful.

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 only 20% (only position has a description). The description lists the key parameters (name, summary, position, visibility) and clarifies name behavior via idempotency, but course_id and defaults are left to the schema. It adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a new section in a course' and lists the specific attributes (name, summary, position, visibility), making the tool's function unambiguous. The idempotency note further distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_section or duplicate_section.

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 makes it clear this is for creating new sections, which implies when to use it. It provides a key usage nuance (reusing a name returns existing section), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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