add-issues-to-module

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add issues to a module' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens if issues are already in the module, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just four words: 'Add issues to a module'. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the purpose statement.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after adding issues, what the return value looks like, error conditions, or permissions required. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but for a tool that modifies data, the description should provide more behavioral context than it does.

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 has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters (project_id, module_id, issues) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Add issues to a module' clearly states the action (add) and target (issues to a module), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add-issues-to-cycle' or 'remove-issue-from-module', which perform similar operations on different resources. The description is specific enough to understand the basic function but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related tools (add-issues-to-cycle, remove-issue-from-module, create-module, list-module-issues) that handle modules and issues, but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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