module_add_param

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool adds a parameter and updates the params array, but does not clarify whether the operation modifies the source in place or returns a new version. It does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or whether the tool is destructive.

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 short and to the point, with a clear opening sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter list could be more integrated into the prose.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and has an output schema. The description explains what the tool does and gives parameter summaries but does not describe return values or how the output is structured. Given the complexity of modifying C source code, more detail about the expected output would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It lists parameters with minimal explanation: param_type exemplified as 'str or int', default_value described as 'Default value', and param_name given an example 'db_url'. This provides some semantic value beyond the bare schema, but details like format constraints or allowed values are missing.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'module parameter to an existing OpenSIPS module C source'. It specifies the actions performed: inserts the parameter variable declaration and updates the params array. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like module_add_mi_command or module_compile.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as ensuring the module source exists, or when not to use it. No alternatives are suggested.

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