add_issues_to_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add issues to a module', which implies mutation but does not explain whether the operation is idempotent, whether it replaces existing module assignments, what permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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 a single short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately concise and contains no unnecessary words, though it offers minimal information.

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?

The tool performs a mutation and has no output schema or annotations, so the description should provide more context about behavior and expected results. The one-line description does not address edge cases, return values, or the semantic of adding issues to a module, making it incomplete for a task with three required parameters.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (project_id, module_id, issue_ids) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds no additional insight beyond what the schema says, hence 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 'Add issues to a module' clearly states the action (add) and the target (issues to a module). It distinguishes from the sibling tool add_issues_to_cycle by specifying module rather than cycle, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 like add_issues_to_cycle, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely restates the tool's function without contextual information or decision criteria.

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