create_module

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the contextual detail that it creates a logical grouping for variables, but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., requiring a model), or behavior beyond the basic create action. This is adequate but minimal, meeting the lower bar set by existing annotations.

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 that immediately states the core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with every word earning its place. No unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 simplicity, the 100% schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for a create operation. However, a brief note on how modules relate to other tools (e.g., 'modules can later be populated via add_to_module') would enhance completeness, so a small deduction is applied.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (name, members, model_id, workspace_id). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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's action ('Create') and resource ('a logical module/group'), and specifies its purpose ('for organizing variables'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_model, create_workspace, and add_to_module, making the intent unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that add_to_module is for adding to existing modules, or that delete_module/rename_module handle other lifecycle operations. The use case is only implied by the tool name and generic purpose statement.

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