update_module

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the update action and the updateable aspects, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing settings. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized with no waste.

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?

This is a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description is too sparse to cover important context such as whether the update is partial or full, required parameters beyond module_id, any dependencies between parameters, or what the response looks like.

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 description maps 'record', 'options', and 'template' to the parameters collection_record_id, template_options, and template_id, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the format or constraints of each parameter, and module_id is only implied by the phrase 'a module'.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a module', and enumerates the three specific aspects (record, options, template) that can be changed. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_collection or update_record in the same group.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_module or update_collection, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer proper usage.

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