update_section

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds key behaviors: it commits and pushes immediately, preserves the heading line, and selects the parser from the file extension. This provides useful operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action, supported formats, and side effect are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complex (mutating, commits/pushes, multiple formats, 5 parameters), yet the description omits critical details: how section_title is matched (exact vs fuzzy, case sensitivity), the role of the optional commit_message, and error behavior on missing sections. No output schema exists, so more explanation is needed but absent.

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?

With schema coverage at 40%, the description should illuminate the undocumented parameters (file_path, section_title, commit_message), but it does not. It only implies section_title via 'by title' and new_content via 'body', leaving these param semantics to the reader.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a section's body', and specifies it works 'by title' and 'preserving its heading line'. This distinguishes it from general file editing tools like edit_file, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like edit_file, rewrite_file, or get_section_content. It mentions supported formats, but no context about the intended workflow or exclusions.

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