add_module_item

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

The annotations already indicate idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, letting the agent know repeated calls create new items and no data is deleted. The description adds the conditional parameter requirements but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as validation outcomes or permissions. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Add an item to a module,' followed by a single critical note on parameter requirements. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose and there is 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key purpose and necessary conditional fields, leveraging the rich schema for param details. It doesn't mention error behavior or return values, but given schema coverage and sibling context, this is sufficient. A 4 is appropriate.

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 baseline is 3. The description's IMPORTANT note about content_id/page_url/title repeats the conditional requirements already present in the schema property descriptions, adding no new meaning beyond the structured data.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' with a clear resource 'item to a module,' directly matching the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_module, update_module_item, and delete_module_item, making the operation unambiguous. The additional required-fields note reinforces the add action.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (adding items to modules) and provides operational guidance for required fields per item type. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives like update_module_item, but the operation name and verb 'Add' create a clear context with no exclusions.

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