update_module_item

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and their basic meaning, omitting details like side effects (e.g., reordering on position change), failure modes (e.g., invalid item_id), or permission requirements. The 'move_to_module_id' parameter hints at cross-module moves, but no explanation of implications.

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 begins with a clear one-line purpose, then enumerates all 12 parameters in a list format. This is structured but somewhat lengthy. Some parameter descriptions are redundant with common sense (e.g., 'New item title'), but the list is comprehensive and not excessively verbose.

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 (12 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers all parameters but lacks broader context. Missing elements include error handling, permission requirements, valid value ranges for position/indent, and interaction effects when multiple fields are updated. The description is adequate for a straightforward update but not fully complete.

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?

Since the input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), the parameter list in the description is essential. Each parameter gets a brief explanation (e.g., 'Course code or Canvas ID', 'New completion type, or empty string to remove'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema names. Some details could be more precise (e.g., position indexing), but overall it compensates well.

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 item,' establishing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_module or delete_module_item, which share the same module context.

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 alternatives (e.g., for creating items use add_module_item, for deleting use delete_module_item). There is no mention of prerequisites, setup steps, or common pitfalls.

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