add_to_module

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

The description merely states the action and adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or whether existing members are preserved. Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive intent (destructiveHint=false), but the description itself offers no extra transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, it lacks any structural elements like parameter examples or usage notes that could aid understanding without increasing length significantly.

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 presence of a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple add operation. It does not, however, cover important context such as whether the module must already exist, how duplicate variables are handled, or any session/workspace requirements beyond the schema hints.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no supplementary meaning about the parameters; it just repeats 'variables' and 'module' which are already present in the schema. No additional clarification on types, constraints, or relationships is provided.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' with a clear resource 'variables' and target 'existing module', which conveys the core action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_variables', leaving potential ambiguity about whether this tool is module-specific or model-wide.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., module must exist, variables must already be defined) or situations where another tool like 'add_variables' or 'remove_from_module' would be more appropriate.

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