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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth architecture (server-minted Bearer key, 'the client never sees sk_live'), which is genuine context beyond the schema. However, it does not characterize which actions are destructive (uninstall, disable), what they affect, or rate/permission constraints, leaving the mutating behaviors underspecified.

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 tight sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded and the security note appended. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 9-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leans heavily on the enum descriptions to convey per-action behavior. It covers hosting/auth context but omits which actions are read-only versus mutating and what each returns, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 100% and all three parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself, including the per-action endpoint mapping and the confirm/module_code requirements. The description adds the select_site sequencing, but otherwise repeats the schema's burden; baseline 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?

States the resource ('Site modules') and scope ('on the currently selected site'), plus a prerequisite. It is clear what the tool operates on, but the verb is weak (the noun 'modules' is used as an action) and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as templates_tool or content_tool beyond the word 'modules'.

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?

Explicitly says 'call select_site first', establishing a hard prerequisite, and the module_code parameter tells the agent to source identifiers from modules_list or active_mods rather than guessing. It does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings, but for a multi-action admin tool the context is clear.

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