add_draft_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals key behaviors: 'NO network,' 'can't time out,' re-id'ing to avoid collisions, quick validation, and non-blocking warnings. It does not mention side effects or return values, but the most critical operational traits are transparent.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence provides distinct, essential information: what it does, its key constraints, and how to construct the input.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational context (no network, durability, validation behavior) and workflow linkage (new_section). It could mention the follow-up commit step (commit_page_draft), but the core usage is clear enough.

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 adds value by instructing to build the section with 'new_section' and noting that sections are re-id'd, which clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 ('Append') and resource ('local page draft') with a clear scope ('ONE section'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_section' by emphasizing the local, no-network nature.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: as a durable per-section cache step that avoids network timeouts. It also directs the agent to build sections with 'new_section,' providing a concrete prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when network access is acceptable).

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