add_module_item

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. It reveals type-dependent field requirements and the New Quiz vs Classic Quiz nuance, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, default positioning behavior, or what happens on invalid input, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then efficiently delivers the type-specific conditions and the New Quiz exception. 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and complex type-dependent behavior, the description covers the most critical distinctions (type requirements, New Quiz vs Classic Quiz) but omits specifics for the ExternalTool type and doesn't address default values or post-add behavior. The schema fills parameter gaps, and the description handles the conditional logic well, but full completeness is not achieved.

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 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by clarifying conditional requirements across types (e.g., Page needs page_url, SubHeader needs title) and the special rule for New Quizzes, which is not present in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination ('Add an item to a module'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_module, update_module_item, and delete_module_item. It also provides type-specific context that reinforces its purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (adding items to a module) and provides type-specific guidelines, including the important exclusion that New Quizzes must use type='Assignment' rather than type='Quiz'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditional usage guidance effectively directs the agent on proper invocation.

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