update_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side-effect—visibility propagates to all modules inside the section—and a validation rule (at least one field required). However, it does not mention permission requirements, reversibility, or return values, which are important for an update operation.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action and include a critical behavioral note. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is moderately simple, but without an output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect after a successful update or on errors. It covers the core behavior and the propagation side-effect, but omits return/error handling and permission context, leaving some ambiguity for a well-rounded decision.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the updatable fields and adds the rule that at least one of them is required, which is not present in the schema. It does not describe course_id and section_id in detail, but those are self-explanatory from the context.

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 the tool's function: updating a course section with specific fields (name, summary, visible) and identifies the resource by section_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_section, hide_section, and reorder_sections, which have different operations.

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 implies usage for updating section metadata but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools such as hide_section or release_section. It provides clear context (update by section_id and course_id) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving potential ambiguity around the 'visible' field versus dedicated hide/release tools.

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