rs_write_module

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

With no annotations at all, the description does add real behavioral facts: RAPID syntax is auto-validated and large modules fall back to file upload via RWS. However, it omits the risk profile an agent needs for a mutation tool — that it overwrites an existing module by default (replace=true), what happens when validation fails, and whether controller mastership/write access is required.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral notes trailing. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical '(SDK)' is doing more work than its brevity suggests it should.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: no return/failure semantics (what the caller sees on syntax error or on a busy controller), no mention of the default destructive replace behavior, and no guidance on the task/module parameters. This is under-specified for the risk level of the tool.

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 67%, and the description only indirectly reinforces two of the six parameters (validation maps to skipValidation, large-module upload maps to useFileUpload). It adds nothing about task or module naming scope, leaving about a third of the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb and resource (write RAPID module source code into a running controller) plus the transport hint (SDK), which separates it from read-oriented siblings like rs_read_module and rs_get_modules. It stops short of naming the near-identical rws_write_module sibling, so the agent must infer the SDK-vs-RWS distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by 'into running controller (SDK)' and by the auto-validation/upload notes, which suggest when each mode applies. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over rws_write_module or rws_write_file, nor any prerequisite (task selection, mastership) called out.

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