add_module

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by spelling out the exact mechanism and consequence: power off, module inserted, power on, 'so unsaved configuration is lost.' That is the kind of concrete side-effect detail the annotation cannot convey. It stops short of mentioning permissions or failure modes.

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?

Three tight clauses: what it does, the hardware-emulation side effect, and the return value. Front-loaded with the action and free of filler.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the returned ports, the description adds the essential prerequisite (empty slot) and the destructive consequence (config loss). Complete for the call decision, though it doesn't address whether prior device configuration must be saved first or any dependency on the device already existing.

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 100% and the schema already provides examples for both module and slot, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the 'empty slot' constraint, a marginal gain over structured data.

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 (install) and resource (module) with a concrete example model (HWIC-2T for serial ports) and target context (empty slot). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling remove_module without needing to open either schema.

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 prerequisite that the slot must be empty and the fact that the device is power-cycled give clear usage context, and the schema points to list_slots for valid slot paths. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the operating conditions are unambiguous.

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