update_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists actions without revealing side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or behavior for omitted parameters. It does not even explicitly state that it mutates an existing module, though 'rename/publish/reposition' implies it. This is a major 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 with no wasted words, and the primary actions are listed up front. However, its brevity border on under-specification; while concise, it sacrifices necessary detail for other dimensions.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 2 required, and zero schema descriptions, this description is inadequate. It does not explain partial update behavior, which fields can be combined, or any constraints (e.g., whether position is relative). An agent would need to guess or consult the schema, but the schema has no descriptions either. The output schema exists but is not referenced or explained. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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. It mentions 'rename, publish/unpublish, or reposition,' which loosely maps to name, published, and position, but it does not clarify which parameters are required, optional, or how they interplay. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 a specific verb (rename, publish/unpublish, reposition) applied to a specific resource (module). These actions map directly to the parameters (name, published, position) and clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like create_module or add_module_item. No ambiguity about what it 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or that it only modifies existing modules (as opposed to creating them). An agent cannot infer usage context from the text alone.

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