create_global_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the dual side effect: persisting a record and embedding the section into page sources, with header/footer placement behavior. It also explains the dry_run default and atomic save. It doesn't mention permissions or conflict handling, but the key behavioral traits (what gets modified and the safety mechanism) 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, provides a prerequisite action, and explains the dry-run mode. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the required sequence, and the safety mechanism. It doesn't specify response format or what happens on conflicts, but the essentials for invocation are present. The complexity is moderate, and the description is adequate.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context (e.g., 'give it a real bg/padding + logo/menu/links' for the section parameter) and explains the `type` field's role in placement (header→top, footer→bottom) beyond the schema enum. This supplementary guidance elevates 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 clearly states the tool creates a reusable global section and explicitly contrasts with the builder's behavior: it persists a global_section record AND embeds the section node into page sources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like new_section (which builds the section) and list_global_sections (which reads). The reference to 'Header / Footer / shared block' and the top/bottom placement provides concrete scope.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Build the section first with new_section ... then pass it here.' It also explains the two-step safety with dry_run=true preview vs dry_run=false atomic save, which tells the user when to use each mode. It implies alternative/complementary tool (new_section) and the distinction between creating the content vs embedding it site-wide.

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