addModule

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals important behavioral side effects: 'Powers the device off, installs the module, powers it back on.' This is strong transparency, though it doesn't cover edge cases like slot occupancy, module compatibility, or exact errors.

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 very tight, first sentence stating the operation and the second outlining the step-by-step device effect. Every sentence is informative, with no repetition or filler.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and a significant side effect. It does not state the return value or confirmation behavior, but the overall critical usage guidance is in place.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so it already documents 'slot', 'model', and 'deviceName'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail or constraints beyond the schema, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 states a clear action ('Add') with a specific resource ('interface module') and a target ('to a device'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like addDevice or addLink. It also provides a concrete outcome without referencing the tool name.

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 when to use the tool—when adding an interface module to an existing device—but does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or contrast with addDevice or addLink. The schema's 'Existing device name' adds context but isn't part of the description.

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