new_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'builds a section node' and that children are stacked, which suggests a non-mutating build operation. However, it does not disclose the return value, whether the section is automatically inserted into a page, or any side effects. The word 'build' implies creation of an object, but not fully 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 succinct, with a clear opening sentence and a useful example. The example is illustrative and earns its place, but the overall length is appropriate. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 tool has moderate complexity with nested child objects, and the schema documents inputs well. However, with no output schema and no mention of the return value or how the built section is used in page workflows, the description leaves some context gaps. A note on the resulting node and its integration would improve completeness.

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 provides comprehensive descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a concrete example of children and reiterates vertical stacking, which slightly reinforces the schema's 'stacked vertically' note. It does not significantly augment the schema's semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 builds a complete section node with a vertical grid layout for children, distinguishing it from sibling tools that build individual elements or add sections elsewhere. The action verb 'Build' is specific and the resource 'section node' is well-defined. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is clear enough.

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 explains how to use the tool (pass an array of element specs, nest children) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like add_section or new_element. It implies usage through the example and the phrase 'in the builder's vertical grid', but lacks direct guidance on when to choose this tool versus others.

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