Update Module

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, telling the agent this is a mutating but not destructive operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context: it doesn't explain partial-update semantics, whether nulls clear fields, or any side effects. With no additional disclosure, the description falls short of adding value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation, front-loads the action ('Update existing'), and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Despite having 24 parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description provides only a basic purpose statement. It doesn't explain which fields are updatable, how null values are treated, or any required context like the module key. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly beyond knowing it updates a module.

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 only 17% (4 of 24 parameters have descriptions), so the description needed to compensate. It only says 'fields' generically and gives no insight into what any of the 24 parameters mean, how they interact, or which are frequently used. This is inadequate for a parameter-heavy update tool.

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 ('Update') and names the exact resource ('sidebar module') and scope ('fields'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_create_module, lyzr_delete_module, and lyzr_get_module_admin.

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 word 'existing' implies the module must already be present and that this is for modifications rather than creation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternative module tools, and no mention of prerequisites like needing a module key or permission.

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