create_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral trait mentioned is that the module 'starts unpublished', which is useful but insufficient. It does not disclose permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to existing modules on position conflict, or any side effects. For a create operation with no annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action, but it is under-specified. For a tool with three parameters and no other documentation, this is not appropriately sized; it lacks necessary detail. It is concise to the point of being unhelpful, similar to a placeholder.

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 has three parameters (two required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters mean, what the expected output is, any constraints, or how it relates to sibling tools like update_module or list_modules. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention name, position, or course_identifier at all, nor does it clarify their meaning or format. The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema, which is undocumented. This is a complete failure to help an agent understand what values to provide.

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 states the verb 'create' and the resource 'module', which is clear and unambiguous. It also adds the behavioral detail that it starts unpublished, which helps distinguish it from a generic create operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools like create_assignment or create_page, though the resource is specific enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_modules, update_module, or add_module_item. It does not state whether it should be used only for creating new modules or any context for prerequisites or typical scenarios. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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