add_module_item

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by stating items are created 'unpublished' and specifying which parameters are needed for each item_type. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, error behavior, or return value, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the follow-up effectively communicates item_type options and dependencies 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the item_type logic and conditional parameters well. However, it omits expected format for course (ID vs name), what happens on success/failure, and any permissions or prerequisites, leaving the agent partially informed.

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 0%, but the description compensates by enumerating valid item_type values and explaining the conditional need for page_url vs content_id. It leaves course, module_id, and title semantics to inference, though those are relatively self-explanatory.

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The description clearly states the tool's action ('Add an item to a module') and adds the important state 'unpublished'. It identifies the resource and action specifically, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools beyond the obvious 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_module or list_module_items. The description only provides parameter-level requirements, not tool-level usage context or exclusions.

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