Edit SubModule.xml

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: edits happen in place, XML formatting is preserved, and only writable modules are eligible. It still omits reversibility/undo and failure behavior, but it earns credit for the formatting-preservation detail.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with verb and resource, then lists capabilities without filler. Slightly dense with the trailing enumeration but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation surface and the key precondition (writable module) while annotations carry the safety signal. It stops short of explaining side effects of removal operations or validation behavior, so it is good but not fully complete.

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 100% and every parameter, including nested add_dll and register_xmls fields, has its own schema description. The description names the same fields (name/version/url/category) the schema already documents, so it adds little syntax or format meaning beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Edits) and resource (SubModule.xml in place) and enumerates the concrete operations: name/version/url/category, dependencies, XML registration, DLL entries. An agent can tell it operates on module manifests, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like write_object, set_attributes, or create_module.

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 only implied: use this to modify an existing writable module's SubModule.xml. The 'writable module' constraint hints at a precondition, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over write_object/set_attributes, nor any when-not guidance or prerequisite detail.

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