update_module_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds key behavioral context: only specified fields are changed, meaning unspecified fields remain unchanged. This is not apparent from the schema alone. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or error behavior.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource purpose and immediately followed by a useful usage note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 simple update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and partial-update behavior. Required identifiers are clear from the schema. Gaps like field-level explanations and error behavior are minor since the tool is straightforward and the fields are mostly self-explanatory.

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 57%, and the description adds a general rule that all optional fields are changeable via partial update. However, it does not explain the semantics of title, position, or published, which are also undescribed in the schema. The partial-update note provides some value but not full compensation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'module item', making it clear this modifies an existing item within a module. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_module_item, delete_module_item, and update_module (which updates the module itself).

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 instruction 'Only include fields you want to change' provides clear partial-update usage guidance. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the resource focus and required IDs imply this is for editing existing items rather than creating or deleting them.

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