Set Module Data Flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that dependsOn is canonical and providesTo is recomputed, and that it syncs module file dependencies. However, it does not mention permissions, destructiveness, or other side effects, leaving some 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core action and key behavioral notes, the second adds side effects and usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required, no enums, has output schema), the description covers the main behavioral aspects. It could mention the default for syncInverse (true), but the schema already does. Adequate for an AI 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that dependsOn is the canonical input and providesTo is recomputed, which clarifies the syncInverse parameter's effect. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 it patches dataFlow for one module, explains that dependsOn is canonical and providesTo is recomputed, and distinguishes it from set-project-architecture for single-module graph edits.

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 explicitly advises using this tool over set-project-architecture for single-module edits, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not include explicit 'when not to use' scenarios, but the alternative is clearly named.

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