Create Module

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

The annotations already carry openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partially structured. However, the description adds nothing beyond the verb 'Create' — no mention of side effects on the course, duplicate-name behavior, publish-state implications, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating tool this gap is meaningful.

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 eight-word sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, with zero padding or redundancy. It earns its place and is easy to scan.

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 simple create operation with a 100%-documented schema and provided annotations, the description is minimally adequate for invoking with the two required parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description never states that the created module (and its ID) is returned — an agent chaining to create_module_item would need that information to proceed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (course_id, name, position, unlock_at, prerequisite_module_ids) are already documented. The description's 'in a course' adds only a trivial mapping to course_id, providing no real value beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 ('Create') plus a concrete resource ('a new module') and scope ('in a course'), so an agent immediately understands the operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like update_module or create_module_item, but the create+module language makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the course must already exist). With siblings like update_module, create_module_item, and list_modules present, the description leaves it entirely to the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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