swebsy_add_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 the default append behavior and the positioning mechanism, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the operation is undoable), prerequisites (like having a page open), or the nature of the mutation (persistent vs. temporary). For a mutation tool, this is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key positioning caveat. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick agent scanning.

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 has a complex nested `component` object, but the schema provides exhaustive descriptions for every property. The description covers the essential usage and placement semantics. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or preconditions beyond 'current page', but these are either implicit or adequately covered by the schema. It is complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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% (every parameter has a schema description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly tying `position` to `targetPath` ('pass `position` plus the `targetPath` of the component to place it next to'), clarifying the interaction beyond the schema's individual descriptions. It also explains the default for `position` (end) in plain language. This lifts it above baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('a new section into the current page'), and clarifies the use case ('adding discrete sections (hero, features, pricing, CTA) to an existing page'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swebsy_insert_block (which likely targets blocks within a section) and swebsy_create_page (which creates a whole page). The scope is unambiguous.

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 says 'Use for adding discrete sections... to an existing page', which gives a clear when-to-use. It also explains the default behavior (appends to end) and how to position via `position` and `targetPath`. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., when to use insert_block instead), though the section focus implicitly separates it. This is clear but not exhaustive.

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