Create Module

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

The description merely restates the action ('Create a new sidebar module') without adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, return value, or consequences of creation. Since annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, the description contributes nothing extra.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the action and object. However, given the tool's complexity (25 parameters), a bit more actionable detail would be beneficial without compromising conciseness.

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 creation tool with 25 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a sidebar module is, what happens after creation (e.g., visibility, persistence), error conditions, or typical return values. The rich schema is helpful, but the description fails to tie the operation into the broader module management context (e.g., relationships with update/get/delete module tools).

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?

All 25 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The tool description itself adds no parameter information. Baseline is 3 because the schema fully documents parameters; the description neither enhances nor harms the understanding of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('new sidebar module'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_update_module and lyzr_delete_module, and from other create tools like lyzr_create_agent or lyzr_create_context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like lyzr_update_module or lyzr_list_modules_admin, nor any prerequisites or intended workflow. The only implied context is that it is for creating modules, but no explicit usage criteria are given.

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