legal_put_social_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a destructive side effect (importing with nothing ticked removes an existing section) and a version prerequisite. It still doesn't state the return value or whether the import is idempotent, but the key risk is surfaced.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste: action and inputs first, then the hazard warning and required follow-up, then the version requirement. Front-loaded and information-rich.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive edge case, the required follow-up call, and the version prerequisite. It is nearly complete; only return behavior and idempotency remain unstated.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by clarifying that the modules can be supplied 'inline or as modules_file' and provides the canonical file path example. This helps the agent choose between the two alternative input parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource (import social-media text modules) and even names the sibling it must be paired with (legal_put_social). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with legal_get_social_modules or legal_put_social beyond the sequencing note.

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?

It gives concrete sequencing guidance ('call legal_put_social with the current networks right after') and a prerequisite ('Requires cvrt-legal 0.6.0+'). It warns of a hazardous scenario but doesn't spell out when NOT to use it versus the sibling get/put tools.

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