new_section

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this has no side effects. The description adds layout behavior beyond that (children stack top-to-bottom, nesting is done through the child's own 'children' array), which is useful, but it never states what the tool returns or that the built node is not persisted.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by construction rules and a single compact example. Every sentence carries information, though the example is long relative to the rest.

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 nested-object builder with a rich schema and readOnlyHint, most of what an agent needs is present. Still missing is the return shape (a section node spec?) and how the built node relates to add_section/add_draft_section, which would remove ambiguity about the next step.

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 goes further by giving a concrete worked example of the children spec ({type, opts:{text,style}}) that clarifies how element type and opts combine. That example adds real meaning beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 and resource ('Build a complete section node') and scopes it to the builder's vertical grid, which distinguishes it from page-mutating siblings like add_section. However, it never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation must be inferred from the builder wording.

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 construct the node (pass an array, children stack, nest via 'children') but gives no when-to-use guidance: no mention of when to prefer this over new_row, new_element, new_page_skeleton, or add_section, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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