Create Module Item

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

While annotations provide openWorldHint and destructiveHint, the description does not add any behavioral context beyond the obvious creation action. It fails to mention that certain types require content_id, that adding items may affect module ordering, or any error conditions. With annotations present, the description's value is minimal, and it does not deepen the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 lists the item types. It is efficient and front-loaded, but slightly terse; a bit more detail on usage or parameter dependencies could enhance clarity without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 8 item types), the description is overly minimal. It does not explain the relationship between type and content_id/external_url, nor does it address potential conflicts or prerequisites. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions in the schema already document all parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarify relationships (e.g., content_id is required for specific types) beyond what the schema provides. This is the baseline for high 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), and lists the allowed item types, which distinguishes it from create_module (which creates a module itself). The verb and resource are specific and 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 implies usage (adding items to existing modules) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_assignment or create_page. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on context.

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