modify_module

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the crucial context of irreversibility and the requirement for the confirm parameter, which helps the agent understand the tool's safety profile beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and critical warnings. Every word serves a purpose, 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?

The description covers the essential purpose and a critical behavioral constraint, but it lacks details about parameter usage (e.g., what happens if confirm is false, how dataset_name is used, content format expectations). Given the output schema exists, the description could be slightly more complete, but it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the 'confirm' parameter and its requirement, but does not explain the meaning of 'dataset_name' or 'content' parameters. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add value for the other two parameters.

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 ('Overwrite a dataset member's content'), the resource ('dataset member'), and key constraints ('IRREVERSIBLE', 'Requires confirm=true'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'upload_member' or 'copy_member' which have different semantics.

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 when to use: only when intending to overwrite content and being certain, as indicated by 'IRREVERSIBLE' and 'Requires confirm=true'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides natural boundaries.

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