canvas_create_module_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical trait that this MUTATES the course, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about required permissions/role, reversibility, or whether duplicate items are allowed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a write operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the mutation warning, then organized into a conditional table plus a clean Args block. The Args section is verbose, but it is not redundant with the schema (0% coverage), so it earns its space; only the repetition of "for item_type=X" phrasing is mildly wasteful.

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. For a 9-param mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the params and the mutation risk well; the remaining gap is the absence of permission/auth prerequisites that an agent would want before attempting the write.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every one of the 9 params is explained, including defaults (course_id, position append behavior, indent top level) and the conditional dependency between item_type and which id field to supply. This is meaning that exists nowhere else in the structured data.

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 and resource ("Add an item to a module") and immediately flags the mutation, which is exactly what an agent needs to distinguish this from canvas_create_module or canvas_update_module. The one-line summary is unambiguous about scope.

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?

Provides the strongest form of conditional guidance: a lookup table mapping each item_type to the id field it requires (content_id, page_url, external_url, or neither). It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over creating the underlying object first (e.g. canvas_create_assignment), so it clears the bar for context without covering exclusions.

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