canvas_create_module

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the tool is known to be mutating. The description adds valuable context: it is 'disabled by default' and requires 'explicit confirmation', explaining why it might be unavailable. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word adds meaning. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, so the description needs to cover return behavior, parameter details, and error states. It provides only minimal context (approved course, confirmation) and omits crucial information like success/failure behavior, response format, and implications of the position/published flags. This is insufficient for a create operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It only mentions 'explicit confirmation' (mapping to the confirmation parameter) and 'approved course' (vaguely relating to course_id), but does not explain name, position, published, or the format of confirmation. The description fails to provide essential parameter semantics.

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 creates exactly one Canvas module, using a specific verb ('create') and resource ('module'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_create_module_item, which creates items within a module. The phrase 'in an approved course' adds scope, making the purpose 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 description mentions prerequisites ('approved course') and a requirement for 'explicit confirmation', which implies the tool is for special cases and not a default action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., canvas_create_module_item) or state when not to use it. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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