add_module_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only that the tool adds an item, without disclosing side effects, permissions, error behavior, or any irreversible consequences. It does not mention what the response looks like, leaving the agent underinformed for a mutating operation.

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 concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by conditional field requirements. No filler or redundancy; every sentence 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 complexity (9 parameters), absence of annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It leaves ambiguity (e.g., 'most others' for SubHeader) and does not clarify how optional parameters like position or indent behave, nor does it explain the return value despite the output schema existing. The conditional guidance helps but is not exhaustive.

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?

With zero schema documentation coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the critical conditional dependencies among item_type, page_url, content_id, and external_url. This is essential information that the schema itself does not convey, so the description adds significant value.

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 the action ('Add an item to a module') and enumerates the allowed item types, which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_module or update_module_item. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Provides useful internal guidance by specifying which parameter to supply for different item types (page_url vs content_id vs external_url). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like update_module_item, so the when-to-use vs alternatives is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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