update_module

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no context about update semantics (e.g., partial vs full update), validation, or return values. The one-line description merely restates the tool's name.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is extremely terse, bordering on under-specification, but the conciseness itself is not flawed.

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 params, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain behavior, required fields, error conditions, or what the update affects, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 11 parameters beyond implying module_id is used. It does not mention required project_id, optional fields like name/status/dates, or that parameters likely default to null.

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 the tool updates a module by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_module or delete_module, though it doesn't describe the scope of fields that can be updated.

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?

Usage is implied from the name and description: it is for modifying an existing module. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus create or delete, nor any prerequisites like 'module must exist'.

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