create_global_section

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses the dual persist+embed side effect, the render consequence (header to top, footer to bottom), and the two-step dry_run safety model with an atomic save. This is substantial context beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by ordering and safety details. Dense but every clause is informative; the multi-line layout is slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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 non-read-only, side-effecting write tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and the dry_run safety model. It falls just short of full completeness by not addressing failure behavior or permission requirements, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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, but the description adds real value: it clarifies that the section param should be the node produced by new_section, that page_ids defaults to every page for header/footer, and that dry_run defaults to preview. These mappings go beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create a reusable global section: Header/Footer/shared block) and explains the dual effect of persisting a record plus embedding into page sources. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like new_section by presenting that tool as a prerequisite rather than an alternative.

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?

Explicitly says to build the section first with new_section and then pass it here, and describes the dry_run preview-vs-commit workflow. It lacks an explicit contrast against ambiguous siblings such as add_section, but the when-to-use and ordering guidance is strong.

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