Update Module

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and adds detail about PATCH semantics and output format (Markdown or JSON). It explains that omitted fields remain unchanged, supporting idempotency. No contradictions; the description adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise at three sentences, with the most important information (PATCH semantics and id requirement) front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, and return format. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the update behavior and return format but fails to explain the meaning of most parameters or any prerequisites. It is adequate but not thorough, leaving the agent to infer from 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?

With only 36% schema description coverage, the description does little to explain the 11 parameters beyond mentioning 'id'. It does not elaborate on fields like 'status', 'serial', or 'module_type', leaving a significant gap in understanding for an AI agent. The description adds minimal value to parameter meaning.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing module in NetBox (PATCH semantics)', clearly identifying the action (update) and the resource (module). It distinguishes from creation or deletion by specifying PATCH semantics, which implies partial updates.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'create_module' or 'delete_module', though the context makes that implicit.

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