scf_update_document_section

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description explains an important behavioral trait: the edit is tracked as a human layer and later regeneration will report a conflict rather than silently overwrite. This is non-obvious, valuable context that helps the agent predict side effects and choose the tool safely.

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 focused sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the critical conflict-behavior detail that fully justifies the tool's existence. Every word contributes to selection or invocation.

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 straightforward single-section update with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, role, and non-obvious behavior (conflict on regeneration). Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 schema already documents all four required parameters with 100% coverage, including the exact UUID patterns and where to obtain identifiers. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond the concept of replacing content, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Replace'), names the exact resource ('one section's content'), and clarifies the write nature with 'human edit (write — editor role)'. It also conveys the key semantic distinction from generated/silent updates by mentioning the human-layer tracking, which sets it apart from document generation/resolution 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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: when a human editor wants to replace a section's content. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or list when not to use it, but the 'editor role' and 'human layer' framing gives adequate context for an agent to distinguish it from generation-oriented or read-only document tools.

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