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

The description reveals key behavioral traits: it adds a new revision rather than overwriting, notes that spec_yaml is base64-encoded YAML, and mentions optional redeployment. With no annotations, this adds significant value, though it does not cover permissions or error scenarios.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key details (revision creation, base64 encoding, optional redeployment). No unnecessary 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 the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain required parameters, the role of handle vs module_uuid, or return values, leaving a large gap for the agent.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description only explains module_uuid and spec_yaml, leaving 8 out of 10 parameters undocumented (e.g., handle, module_type, role_uuid, permission, deploy_staging, etc.). This is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'reusable module', with the specific identifier 'module_uuid'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_module or 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 an existing module, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like update_config. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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