update_module

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

The annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the bare 'update' — it does not clarify partial vs full updates, whether missing optional fields retain prior values, or any other behavioral nuances. Since annotations carry the burden, the description's minimal additional context yields a low-but-not-contradictory score.

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?

One concise sentence, no filler. It is front-loaded and effectively sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward nature, the description plus rich schema and annotations are sufficient for basic use. However, it omits details like partial update semantics (whether unspecified fields are untouched) and error scenarios, which would be valuable for an update mutation. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'New module name'). The tool description itself does not add any param detail, but the schema fully documents meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing module's settings' — a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_module and delete_module. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 this is for modifying an existing module, but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over create_module or delete_module, nor any prerequisites beyond the required parameters visible in the schema. It is adequate but not prescriptive.

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