add_draft_section

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

Annotations only indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds rich behavioral context: no network, durable per-section cache, no timeout, section re-id to avoid collisions, quick validation, and warnings that are surfaced but never block. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 three tightly packed sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then adds essential behavioral context in parentheses and a short prerequisite note.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, operational behavior (local, durable, no timeout), and edge-case handling (warnings don't block). It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the draft workflow.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by stating the section should be built with new_section and that it will be re-id'd, which supplements the schema's 'section node (from new_section)' with process details.

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+resource: 'Append ONE section to a local page draft', and distinguishes it from network-dependent operations with 'NO network — this is the durable per-section cache step'. It also clarifies that it operates on drafts, not live pages, separating it from sibling tools like add_section.

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 an implicit usage guideline by instructing 'Build the section with new_section', indicating a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as commit_page_draft or add_section, leaving the agent to infer the workflow context.

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