release_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the primary effect but omits important behavioral details such as required permissions, idempotency (what happens if the section is already visible), reversibility (though implied by hide_section), or side effects on students or sub-sections. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the action and its relationship to hide_section. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is quite sparse. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success response), prerequisites (section must exist, user permissions), or edge cases (already visible, invalid IDs). Given the simplicity of the tool, more behavioral context is expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. While the parameter names course_id and section_id are largely self-explanatory, the description adds minimal semantic meaning beyond what names provide. It implicitly links them via 'course section' but doesn't clarify valid values or relationships, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Make' and clearly identifies the resource 'course section visible to students'. It also explicitly names the reverse operation 'hide_section', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool and clarifies its role.

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 by stating it is the reverse of hide_section, implying when to use it (when a section should be made visible). However, it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives beyond hide_section, so it falls short of a 5.

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