update-module

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint: true, which is safe. The description adds a list of updatable fields but does not disclose whether updates are partial (only provided fields) or full replacement, how unspecified fields behave, or any side effects/auth requirements. This is a significant gap for an update tool, though no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, enumerates the key fields, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the information provided.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as partial vs. full update semantics, the expected format for unlock_at, the meaning of publish_final_grade, and any return value or errors. The agent would need to infer too much to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

With only 22% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mentioning five of nine parameters in plain language (name, position, prerequisites, sequential progress, published). However, it omits unlock_at and publish_final_grade, and does not clarify types or formats (e.g., prerequisites as array of IDs, sequential progress as boolean). This provides marginal value beyond the schema but remains incomplete.

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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing module'), and enumerates specific mutable attributes (name, position, prerequisites, sequential progress, published state). This distinguishes it from create/delete siblings by action type, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-module or update-module-item. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical workflows; the description relies solely on the schema for required parameters.

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