create_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and restates the obvious 'create' action, with no mention of side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or response behavior. This is a significant gap 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 exceptionally concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted Args list. There is no redundancy, and each line provides either parameter meaning or format. This is efficient and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, and all parameters are described, providing a basic level of completeness. However, the tool has 6 parameters including a required project_id, yet the description lacks any context about prerequisites or side effects, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting all six parameters with useful semantics: project_id as UUID, date formats, optional flags, and lead as a UUID. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though it could be more detailed about relationships.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new module in a project.' This distinguishes it from sibling create tools for other entities like labels, states, and issue types. The resource type is unambiguous.

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 intended usage is implied by the tool's name and action, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), or alternatives. It simply states the creation action without contextual boundaries.

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