create_module_item

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

Annotations already declare 'destructiveHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', so the description's claim of 'Add' is consistent. However, it adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects, or error conditions). With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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, 15-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding. It is appropriately sized.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema provides detailed parameter info. Missing are details about error handling, conditional requirements, or typical use cases. However, given the tool's straightforward nature and good schema, it is barely adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including enum values for 'type' and conditional requirements for 'content_id'. The description merely lists the types without adding new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('item to a module'), listing specific item types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_assignment' (which creates standalone assignments) or 'create_module' (which creates modules). The purpose is 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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, if the user wants to create an assignment without adding it to a module immediately, they'd need a different tool. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., module must exist) or when not to use it is provided.

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