Update Module

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 mention of 'update' aligns with that. The description adds the specific update operations (rename, reposition, publish/unpublish), which gives some practical insight, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the behavior when only some fields are provided. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys the tool's purpose and key operations. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is no extraneous text.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or full (must provide all), nor does it mention any prerequisites or consequences. The schema covers parameter details, but the behavioral implications of updating a module (e.g., effect on module items) are not addressed. Given the relatively simple scope, it is adequate but not rich.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with clear descriptions (name, position, published, course_id, module_id). The description reiterates these via 'rename, reposition, publish/unpublish' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 the tool's purpose: updating an existing module, and even enumerates the specific operations it supports (rename, reposition, publish/unpublish). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_module (for new modules) and get_module (for viewing).

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 phrase 'existing module' implies it is for modifying modules that already exist, which effectively contrasts with create_module. It lists the types of updates allowed, giving context on what it can do. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives beyond implicit contrast.

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