haops_create_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'creates' a module, implying a write operation, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or any impact on related entities. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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: one sentence with eight words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, and every word is meaningful. No waste.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose but lacks context about project association, module semantics, or the relationship between required parameters. It does not explain what happens upon creation or how to interpret results.

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% description coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not exceed this.

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 ('create') and the resource ('a new module in a HAOps project'). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling create tools (e.g., haops_create_issue), missing the opportunity to help the agent choose this tool over others.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as haops_update_module or haops_claim_module. There are no exclusions or context about prerequisites or common use cases, leaving the agent without direction beyond the basic verb.

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