rws_write_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'auto-mastership' as a behavioral trait, but fails to disclose important aspects: whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing module), requires specific permissions, or has side effects on the robot state. The description is too sparse for a write operation.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the key purpose. However, brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details. It earns its place for being direct, but does not achieve an optimal balance of completeness and conciseness.

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 (writing module text with potential system impact), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks return value info, error conditions, prerequisites, and behavior details. With no annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide a minimally usable context for the agent.

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 three required parameters (task, module, code) with zero description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters—it does not explain what 'task' refers to, how 'module' is specified, or what format 'code' should follow. The agent has no context beyond parameter names.

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 'Write RAPID module text via RWS (auto-mastership)' clearly states the verb (write), resource (RAPID module text), and method (via RWS with auto-mastership). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like rws_read_module or rws_write_variable.

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, exclusions, or context where other tools like rws_write_file or rws_write_variable would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the verb 'write'.

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