update_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Update a module by ID' and 'Returns Updated Module object,' without explaining update semantics, null-field behavior, permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter list is organized and readable. The return value is also stated. The only waste is the invalid workspace_slug entry and the omission of any usage guidance, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

With 11 parameters and no annotations, the description must do more than list parameters. It omits usage context, partial-update behavior, and how null values are handled, which are critical for an update operation. The invalid workspace_slug also makes the description less reliable, despite the output schema being available.

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 adds useful semantics for many schema properties, such as ISO 8601 for dates, UUID expectations, and allowed status values. However, it incorrectly lists workspace_slug as an argument even though the input schema does not include it and has additionalProperties: false, which could mislead an agent into passing an invalid parameter.

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 clear, specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Update a module by ID.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_module, retrieve_module, and delete_module, which are obvious alternatives in the tool list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any mention of when not to use it. The name and opening line imply it is for modifying an existing module, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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