create_module

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious fact that it creates a module. It does not address authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but the annotations provide a baseline safety profile.

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 concise and well-organized. It starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with brief descriptions, and ends with the return value. Every line adds value without redundancy.

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?

All parameters are thoroughly documented, and the return type is mentioned. However, the description lacks usage context such as prerequisites or relationships with other tools. Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the return description is sufficient, but overall completeness is slightly hindered by missing usage guidelines.

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 fully compensates by providing meaningful explanations for all 10 parameters. It includes allowed values for status, ISO 8601 format for dates, and clarifies types (UUID, list). This is essential for correct parameter usage.

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 opens with 'Create a new module,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It lists all parameters with their purposes, making the tool's function apparent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools like create_cycle or create_initiative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it specify when not to use it. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameter list.

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