pt_add_module

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses the disruptive side effect ("device is power-cycled automatically") and the return value ("the device's ports afterwards"). It does not cover failure modes, e.g. what happens if the module string is invalid or the slot is occupied.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the critical side effect in the first clause, then the example list that is genuinely necessary given opaque module identifiers. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states what is returned, and it flags the power cycle. Remaining gaps are error/precondition behavior and the device identifier format, which matter for a mutation tool but are secondary given the strong module guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains the slot default behavior and supplies concrete, otherwise-unguessable values for module (HWIC-2T, NIM-2T, AC-POWER-SUPPLY, etc.). The device parameter is left unexplained — no hint about name format or whether the device must already exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Insert a module") into a device, and adds a concrete catalog of common module strings. It is clearly distinct from siblings like pt_device_modules (inspection) and pt_add_devices (creation), though it never names a sibling to reinforce that distinction.

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 module examples and the "slot omitted = first slot that accepts it" rule imply the intended usage, and the note that the device is power-cycled signals the operational cost. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus pt_add_devices or pt_update_device, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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