add_to_module

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

Annotations declare non-destructive mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or required variable existence. With annotations present, the score is adequate.

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?

Single sentence, verb-first, minimal. While concise, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Still, it's well-structured for a simple tool.

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 3 required params and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to mention that the module must exist or that members must be valid variable names. Additional context would improve usability.

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 100%, so the schema documents parameters fully. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'add variables to module', which is already captured by the name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('add') and resource ('variables to an existing module'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_module (create new) and remove_from_module (remove). It unambiguously describes the primary function.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., module must exist) or exclusions (e.g., not for adding variables directly to the model). An agent would need to infer from sibling names or schema.

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