write_section

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'formal academic style' and 'citations' but does not describe potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing section content), required permissions, or failure modes. For a writing tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that includes the key action and lists section options. It is efficient but could benefit from front-loading the most critical information (e.g., mandatory input).

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, usage constraints, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'format_references_apa7' or 'validate_citations'.

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 40% (2 of 5 params have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it repeats the section list but does not explain 'language', 'instructions', or the relationship between 'paper_ids' and citations. It fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 states 'Write a specific section of the manuscript in formal academic style with proper in-text citations' and lists possible section values. This clearly defines the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'analyze_literature' or 'generate_comparison_table'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'build_docx' or 'validate_citations'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.

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