Create a reusable module (a typed config fragment referenced by handle) and optionally deploy it to staging or production. spec_yaml is base64-encoded YAML of the module body; module_type is the config struct it represents (e.g. Database).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | ||
| role_uuid | No | ||
| spec_yaml | Yes | ||
| permission | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| module_type | Yes | ||
| deploy_staging | No | ||
| deploy_production | No | ||
| organization_uuid | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only explains two parameters but fails to mention what happens on duplicate handle, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects of deployment.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key parameter details. No wasted words.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks return value info, prerequisites, error conditions, and examples.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains spec_yaml (base64-encoded YAML) and module_type (config struct), but ignores 7 other parameters (handle, role_uuid, permission, etc.), leaving them undocumented.
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 clearly states the tool creates a reusable module with optional deployment, using specific verbs and resource ('Create a reusable module'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_config by specifying 'module' and 'optionally deploy'.
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 implies usage for creating modules with optional deployment but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like create_config or edit_module.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting either configs or modules with specific actions (create, get, list, delete, update, deploy, etc.). The only potential overlap is between edit_config and plan_config, but they serve different stages of config management (editing vs. authoring).
The naming follows a verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., create_config, delete_config, list_configs). Minor inconsistency: 'list_configs' uses plural while most others use singular (config). Overall, the pattern is predictable and clear.
With 19 tools, the count is slightly above average but justified by the need to manage two resource types (configs and modules) with full lifecycle operations including deployment, revision handling, and validation. It is well-scoped for a configuration management server.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for both configs and modules, plus deployment, undeployment, toggling, revision management, editing via NL, planning, and validation. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.