create-module-item

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that (creating, not destroying). The description adds the type constraint but does not disclose potential side effects, such as module reordering or required content references. It provides baseline transparency but lacks depth.

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, tightly scoped sentence followed by a type list. It wastes no words and immediately conveys the core operation. It is an excellent example of 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?

Given the schema's rich parameter descriptions, the brief description is adequate for understanding what the tool does. It could have included conditional guidance (e.g., content_id required for File/Quiz/Assignment) but the schema already provides that. The tool has no output schema, so no return-value explanation is needed.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including per-type requirements. The description repeats the type enum but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Add a new item') and the target resource ('a module'), with an explicit enumeration of allowed item types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-module, update-module-item, and delete-module-item.

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 clear context: this tool is for adding new items to modules. It does not explicitly name alternatives for updating or deleting module items, but the context makes the usage obvious. No exclusions are given, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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