duplicate_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by noting the operation is idempotent and returns 'exists' when the section name already exists. However, it does not disclose other important traits such as whether the operation is destructive to existing data, what happens on invalid input, or what return value is expected on success.

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 two sentences and immediately states the primary action and key exception. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence carries meaningful information without unnecessary detail.

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?

As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the caller receives on success and how the input parameters affect behavior. It mentions the 'exists' idempotent case but not the success return value (e.g., new section ID) or the effect of the 'visible' parameter. This leaves important gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented properties like course_id and visible. It does not: it only restates that the new section name comes from the 'name' parameter, which the schema already says. The phrase 'use get_course_context to find section IDs' is already in the schema and adds no new meaning. The description fails to clarify the remaining half of the parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'duplicate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all modules from a source section into a new section in the same course.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_section or duplicate_course, and the scope (same course) is explicitly stated.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to duplicate all modules from a source section into a new section. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over other section-related tools. The parameter description for source_section_id adds helpful prerequisite guidance by pointing to get_course_context.

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