Edit a section

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Replace' clearly signals mutation, and the expected_revision guidance adds concurrency context. However, the schema already documents the rejection-on-stale-revision behavior, so the description adds limited new behavioral disclosure beyond what the structured fields provide; it does not mention permanence or failure modes.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the most important usage caveat (expected_revision) placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the tool easy to scan.

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 straightforward edit tool, the description covers what it does, when to prefer it, and how to avoid concurrency issues, while all six parameters are documented by the schema. It does not mention the return value or what happens if the section does not exist, but that is a minor gap given the full schema coverage and simple operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the expected_revision purpose from the schema rather than adding meaningful new parameter semantics. It does not explain formatting requirements for content or section matching beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: 'Replace one section of an article with corrected Markdown.' It clearly distinguishes itself from create_topic by noting it is preferred when fixing an error, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without reading schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you find an error') and names the alternative it should be preferred over ('creating a duplicate topic'). It also gives concrete guidance to pass expected_revision from read_topic to prevent concurrent edits, which is a clear, actionable usage rule.

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