Update an existing reusable module by module_uuid (adds a new revision; spec_yaml is base64-encoded YAML) and optionally redeploy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | ||
| role_uuid | No | ||
| spec_yaml | Yes | ||
| permission | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| module_type | Yes | ||
| module_uuid | No | ||
| deploy_staging | No | ||
| deploy_production | No | ||
| organization_uuid | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that updating adds a new revision (not in-place modification) and that spec_yaml must be base64-encoded. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to old revisions.
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?
Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, key detail about new revision, spec_yaml encoding, and optional redeploy. 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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain most parameters or return value, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.
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 has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains spec_yaml (base64-encoded YAML) and hints at redeployment parameters, but ignores other parameters like handle, role_uuid, permission, description, module_type, and organization_uuid. Insufficient compensation for the schema gap.
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 updates an existing reusable module by module_uuid, adds a new revision, and optionally redeploys. It specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'module', and distinguishes from siblings like create_module and delete_module.
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 updating modules and optionally redeploying, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like create_module or deploy_module_revision. No prerequisites or exclusions provided.
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.