update_module_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. While it lists the modifications it can make, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to other attributes when only some fields are changed. For a mutation tool, 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 concise sentence that front-loads the resource and all supported actions. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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 (7 parameters, four distinct operations) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters map to operations, what the output schema contains, or any preconditions. An agent would need to infer most usage details from parameter names and schema types.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must explain the parameters, but it mentions none of them. It does not map actions like 'reposition' to the 'position' parameter or 're-indent' to 'indent', leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. This provides almost no value over the raw schema.

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 specifies the resource (a module item) and the four distinct operations it supports (rename, publish/unpublish, reposition, re-indent). This is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like add_module_item (creation) and delete_module (deletion) without needing to inspect the schema.

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 it is for modifying an existing module item, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., update_module for module-level changes) or any conditions for use (e.g., item must already exist). It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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