create_module

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with those basics. It adds valuable behavioral context: lead must be a user UUID from get_workspace_members, members is an array of UUIDs, and dates follow YYYY-MM-DD format. These details go beyond annotations and help correct invocation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by essential constraints. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most ambiguous fields (UUIDs and dates) but omits details about status values, external_id/external_source semantics, and return behavior. It is adequate for a simple create operation but leaves some gaps for the agent.

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 has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains lead and members as user UUIDs and specifies date format, but it does not clarify external_id, external_source, status, or explicitly state that project_id references an existing project. Parameter names like project_id and name are self-explanatory to some degree, providing partial compensation.

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 'Create a new module in a project,' specifying the verb 'create,' the resource 'module,' and the context 'in a project.' This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_project and create_work_item.

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 some context by referencing get_workspace_members for the lead field, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus update/delete/retrieve_module or other alternatives, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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