update_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of partial update (unspecified fields remain unchanged) via 'Only include fields you want to change.' However, it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects like auth requirements, error behavior, or side effects, which are important 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 short sentences, both essential. It states the action and the key usage rule without any fluff, making it easy to parse and directly actionable.

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?

The description is minimal for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks details about the relationship between course_id and module_id, error conditions, what happens on success, and how this tool relates to publish_module (which also has a published field). The partial-update hint is useful but leaves many operational questions unanswered.

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 50%, and the description adds the crucial semantic that all optional fields are optional update targets, not required inputs. This partially compensates for undocumented fields like 'name', 'position', and 'published'. However, the description does not explain the meaning of these fields or their formats beyond what the schema already provides, so it doesn't fully compensate for the gap.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing module.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_module, delete_module, and publish_module. The additional phrase 'Only include fields you want to change' further clarifies that this is a partial-update operation.

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 establishes clear context: use this when updating an existing module, and only include fields to change. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., publish_module for publishing, create_module for new modules) or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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