delete_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is permanent ('This cannot be undone'), specifies the destructive effect on the module, and clarifies the nuanced consequence that items themselves are not deleted. This adequately exposes the mutating and irreversible nature of the tool.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It leads with the primary action, immediately emphasizes permanence, and then adds the important nuance about items. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple destructive tool with two obvious parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is deleted, what is not, and irreversibility. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward delete operation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does not — course_identifier and module_id are not mentioned or explained in the description. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but there is no additional semantic detail (e.g., format, how to find the identifier) beyond what the names alone imply.

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 ('Permanently delete a module') and the specific resource ('module'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_page or delete_assignment by clarifying that the module's items are not themselves deleted. The verb is specific and the scope is explicit.

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 when to use the tool (when a module needs to be removed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention conditions like 'use delete_page instead to remove individual items'. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, though the clarity of purpose partially compensates.

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