copalibre_module_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: it runs the same direct-database install as the CLI, needs no API token, and writes to the local database and object storage rather than apps/api. It still omits idempotency, failure behavior, and permission requirements, so it falls short of full transparency.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by version/source qualification and then the runtime context. Three dense sentences with no filler, each adding distinct information.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone; it covers what gets installed, from where, and the direct-DB/no-token install path. It leaves gaps around re-run safety and the effect of allow_unsatisfied_capabilities, which keeps it from a 5.

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 50%: range and source are documented in the schema and reinforced by the description (latest by default, source must be allow-listed). However, required alias and the boolean allow_unsatisfied_capabilities are unexplained in both places, and the latter sounds consequential; the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 (installs) and resource (discipline or tournament-profile module), plus scope qualifiers: latest version or a semver range. It clearly occupies a different niche from siblings like copalibre_module_list, copalibre_module_remove, and copalibre_module_verify.

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 gives a concrete trigger: use it to add a module an installation needs before creating a tournament with it. There are no explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer submit/scaffold), but the use context is clear enough to route an agent.

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