Update Module

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

Description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: sections are replaced entirely, omitted sections are unchanged, id matching enables renaming, and prerequisite calls are mandatory. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint true), and adds context about validation behavior.

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?

Efficient four-sentence structure: first sentence states purpose, second explains replacement behavior, third gives prerequisite, fourth provides validation guidance. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects), the description is thorough: covers purpose, modus operandi, prerequisites, validation, and id handling. No output schema exists, but return value is implied. Contextual completeness is high for the domain.

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 coverage is high (89%), but description adds meaningful context: importance of id from get_module_canvas, replacement semantics for sections, id behavior for renaming, workspaceId omission context. Baseline 3, but description adds significant value beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing module' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like create_module by noting that it modifies an existing module and requires get_module_canvas first. The replacement semantics for sections and prerequisites further differentiate it.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Always call get_module_canvas first' and for partial payloads 'validate the merged canvas with validate_design first.' Also explains when to include items (keep) and omit (leave unchanged), and distinguishes validation rules for full vs. partial payloads.

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