Update J3 Module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the edit is scoped (only matched text changes, safer than a full rewrite), which is real behavioral context. It does not address what happens on no-match, whether the change is idempotent, required permissions, or reversibility.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose leading and the safety rationale and prerequisite following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description adequately covers purpose, mechanism, and prerequisite. For an un-annotated mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation, however, it leaves permission requirements and no-match/error behavior unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the find/replace semantics well enough to infer the 'find' and 'replace' parameters, but 'module_id' is left unexplained and no format or matching-rule details (case sensitivity, occurrence count) are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (update text inside a Journal3 module's JSON data) plus the exact mechanism (find/replace). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the J3 settings/ skin-setting siblings by scoping to module JSON, and names its read counterpart get_j3_module. It never explicitly contrasts with update_j3_setting/update_j3_skin_setting, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Recommends invoking get_j3_module first to inspect current content, which is a genuine workflow prerequisite. It also frames the tool as 'safer than rewriting the entire module'. However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing among the other update_j3_* tools, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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