vizcom_create_section

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description earns credit for disclosing the coordinate convention (x/y is CENTER, positive Y is UP) and the side-effect boundary (no auto-containment of nodes), neither of which is in annotations or schema. It does not cover permissions, whether repeated calls create duplicates, or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action, the coordinate convention, and the containment caveat are all front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 6-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation-level detail, the definition covers the two highest-risk ambiguities (coordinate origin/direction and node containment). It still leaves the agent without guidance on sizing, title constraints, or the workbenchId scope, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it only does so for x and y (center-relative, Y-up). title, width, height, and workbenchId remain undocumented beyond their types, leaving half the required inputs unexplained.

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?

"Create a visible board section" is a specific verb+resource, and no sibling tool creates sections, so the agent can place it in the toolset without ambiguity. The coordinate note further pins down what the created object is, though it stops short of naming how it relates to other board-mutating siblings.

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 a clear post-condition (existing nodes are NOT moved into the new section) and routes the agent to vizcom_check_layout to verify placement. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., a workbench must exist) or when a section is preferable to arranging nodes directly.

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