Update a module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states what can be updated and the custom fields map format; it does not mention permissions, partial-update semantics, effect on child artifacts, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two concise sentences with no filler or redundancy. The key action and object are front-loaded, and the fields map instruction is a valuable addition in the second sentence.

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?

The tool is simple and all parameters are documented, so invocation is feasible. However, with no output schema and no behavioral details, the description leaves gaps about what happens if no updatable fields are supplied, whether partial updates are allowed, and what the response contains. It is adequate but lacks richer operational context.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds a brief clarification about providing fields as a map of fieldId -> value, but this largely reiterates the existing schema description ('Custom field values keyed by numeric field id'). No substantial new meaning is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('a module'), explicitly listing the updatable attributes: name, description, and custom fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qtest_create_module or qtest_update_requirement.

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 implies it is used to modify an existing module, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over qtest_create_module or other update tools. There are no exclusions or alternative comparisons, so usage context is only implied.

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