update-module-item

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

The annotation declares idempotentHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether unspecified fields are left unchanged. It doesn't mention side effects like moving an item removing it from the original module, so it leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all updatable attributes with no redundancy.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain partial update behavior, required parameters, or return value, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 33%, and the description merely lists parameter names without explaining semantics or dependencies. For example, it doesn't clarify the relationship between completion_requirement_type and completion_requirement_min_score, or the effect of new_tab on external URLs.

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 specifies 'Update an existing module item' and enumerates the fields (title, position, indent, external URL, published state, completion requirement, move). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-module-item or 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 implies usage for updating existing module items, but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like update-module or get-module-item. It provides clear context without explicit exclusions.

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