create_module

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already convey. Annotations state idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., publishing by default), permission requirements, or whether the module is created in a draft state. The wording 'create' implies mutation but offers no further context.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. There is no superfluous text, and the core action is front-loaded. It avoids redundancy with the tool name and schema details.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the API returns upon success (e.g., the created module's ID or details). Given the tool's role in a larger module workflow, the description does not cover the expected outcome or any error conditions. The schema is rich, but the description leaves the agent without guidance on how to handle the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description makes no mention of parameters or their implications, relying entirely on the schema. It does not add any value beyond what the property descriptions already provide, such as defaults or formatting for unlock_at.

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 'Create a new module in a course' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (module) within a course. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_module, delete_module, and list_modules by the verb, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus other module-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when creation is appropriate, or how it differs from update_module or add_module_item. The instruction is minimal and leaves the agent to infer the use case.

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