moodle_call

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new context: token-permission scoping, that nested params are accepted, and a heuristic that write-named functions should be treated like submissions and confirmed first. This reinforces rather than contradicts 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the 'Escape hatch' framing, then a concrete example, then the safety rule. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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 an open-world, destructive tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, when to use, parameter shape and the confirmation requirement. Error/failure behavior is not mentioned, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does reasonably well: it defines wsfunction as any token-permitted Moodle function and supplies a concrete example with a real function name and nested params object. It does not spell out how invalid function names or malformed params are handled, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('call any Moodle web-service function') and frames itself as an 'escape hatch', which implicitly positions it as the generic fallback against the many specific siblings (moodle_grades, moodle_submit_assignment, etc.). It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear context ('any function the token allows') and a concrete rule for write operations: confirm first for save/submit/update/delete/send. It stops short of an explicit exclusion like 'prefer the specific tools when one exists', which is the main guidance an agent needs for an escape hatch.

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