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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is known. The description adds nothing about ownership rules, what happens to existing modules on re-register, or what 'delete' string parameter does to persistent state.

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 single sentence is truncated with an ellipsis rather than front-loaded, so the one piece of information the agent needs—what a registered module actually is—is cut off. Brevity here is under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

A nested-object mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and open-world behavior needs substantially more description than one truncated clause. With annotations covering only the coarse safety profile, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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%, so the description must carry the load, yet it never mentions the four parameters. The trailing 'text, lines, kv...' only loosely hints at module kinds and cannot explain 'delete' (typed string), 'update' (boolean), or 'owner_key'.

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?

It states a verb and resource ('Register your own module type') and gestures at the domain ('pane over stored state'), but the sentence trails off mid-list ('text, lines, kv...') leaving the actual scope undefined. Nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like collab_routine_create, collab_edit, or collab_state.

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?

There is no statement of when to register a module versus using collab_routine_create, collab_op, or collab_edit, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess the trigger condition from the name alone.

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