ensure_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that creation/assignment happens 'explicitly when requested' and that a preview mode exists. It omits permissions, idempotency on an existing module, what happens if module_name already exists, and whether assignment mutates work items.

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?

A single compact sentence with the preview-first behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter, annotation-free, mutating tool the description is far too thin. An agent cannot safely invoke it without guessing at the semantics of most parameters and the creation/idempotency behavior.

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 only 14% (just confirm_project_identifier), leaving six of seven parameters undocumented in the schema. The description vaguely gestures at dry_run ('preview'), create_if_missing ('create'), and work_item_ids ('assign'), but adds no meaning about module_name matching rules, project_id versus confirm_project_identifier, or defaults.

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 verb 'ensure' plus 'module' suggests a get-or-create/assign operation, and the description distinguishes preview/find from create/assign. However, it never says what a module is in this system or how this differs concretely from siblings like create_standard_work_item or find_work_items. The purpose is inferable but underspecified.

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?

'then explicitly create or assign it when requested' hints that creation is opt-in, which is a usage signal. But there is no statement of when to use this versus the many sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of the dry_run/create_if_missing defaults that actually govern behavior.

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