alterios_create_material_module

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'plan or apply' hinting at a dry_run parameter, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon actual application. The output schema exists but is not mentioned. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive 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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is not overly verbose and fits within a short span. However, it could be improved by front-loading key action words and separating the 'plan' vs 'apply' modes more clearly.

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?

With 29 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain how to use the tool, what each parameter does, or what the output represents. The existence of an output schema somewhat mitigates but does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance. The description is too sparse for a complex 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. However, it only vaguely references 'content type, fields, view, forms, and group' without mapping to specific parameter names (e.g., module_name, field_name_prefix, fields) or explaining their meaning. Many parameters (e.g., plan_id, profile, icon_ids) are left unexplained, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 tool's purpose: to plan or apply a full Alterios material module covering content type, fields, view, forms, and group. The verb 'plan or apply' and resource 'material module' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_field or alterios_upsert_view that handle individual components, so it lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as individual upsert tools. The description implies it is for a full module but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or disqualifying cases. This omission makes it harder for an AI agent to decide correctly.

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