Module Hook Implement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions working within an existing module but says nothing about file modification, required permissions, reversibility, or what 'implement' actually produces.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse, but the brevity is not padded or disorganized.

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 mutation-style code generation tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the context needed to call it correctly, even though an output schema exists.

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 all three parameters. It vaguely implies machine_name and hook but provides no format details, and the optional 'path' parameter is completely unexplained.

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 (implement) and resource (hook) scoped to an existing module. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling code-generation tools such as module_controller_create or module_event_subscriber_create.

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?

It implies the module must already exist, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus other module_* generation tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'existing module'.

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