delete_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that deletion is permanent ('cannot be undone') and that it cascades to all items within the module. This covers the most critical behavioral traits. It does not mention permission requirements or whether confirmation is needed, but the schema already documents the confirm_name parameter.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the primary behavior and the key consequence (permanence).

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 three-parameter deletion tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, and critical behavioral consequences. No additional details about return values are necessary, and the potential for cascading deletion is explicitly mentioned.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides for course_id, module_id, and confirm_name. The confirm_name parameter is self-explanatory in the schema as a safety check, so full credit is given to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and identifies the exact resource ('a module') along with a critical scope detail ('and all items within it'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool delete_module_item, which only removes items within a module. The permanence warning further reinforces the purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to delete an entire module and its contents), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative delete_module_item for removing a single item without affecting the module. Usage guidance is implied rather than directly compared across siblings.

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