Module Create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Full scaffolding' vaguely implies file generation, but the description never says where files land, whether an existing module is overwritten, what permissions/disk access are needed, or what 'full' includes. For a write/generation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized. However, the brevity is closer to under-specification than true economy given the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but everything else is missing: no annotation safety profile, no parameter meaning for 11 fields, and no routing against the many sibling module generators. For a scaffolding mutation tool this leaves the agent under-informed.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Critical knobs like machine_name, path, dependencies, generate_routing/services/permissions/config_schema, and core_version_requirement are entirely undocumented, so the agent must infer semantics from 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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (Drupal module) plus the scope qualifier 'full scaffolding', so an agent knows this generates a complete module skeleton. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as module_test_create, module_controller_create, or module_service_create, which create narrower artifacts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling generators (module_controller_create, module_service_create, module_plugin_create, module_form_create, module_info_generate, module_hook_implement). No prerequisites, no statement of whether it is safe to run when a module already exists.

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