add_section

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

No annotations exist, so the description takes on full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: reading current source, appending, validating, saving only when dry_run=false, and re-id'ing sections to avoid collisions. This is exemplary transparency for a potentially destructive operation.

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 deliver purpose, process, and safety guidance without wasted words. The description is front-loaded and every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 description covers the core workflow and side effects well. It is missing return value description (preview output) and behavior on validation failure, but the tool complexity is moderate and the safety workflow is well documented.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds extra meaning by directing users to build the section with new_section and explaining the re-id behavior, which clarifies the section parameter's role beyond its raw 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Append a section to an EXISTING page's source.' This distinguishes it from page creation or draft-specific tools, especially with the mention of re-id and building with new_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 gives concrete usage context: it appends to existing pages, requires a section from new_section, and provides a two-step safety workflow with dry_run. It lacks explicit comparisons to alternatives like add_draft_section or update_page_source, but the context is clear.

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