canvas_update_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it warns of mutation, discloses the cascading side effect on module items, and states that omitted fields are left unchanged. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loads the mutation warning and cascade behavior before the Args block, which is exactly what an agent needs first. The Args list is slightly verbose but every line adds information about defaults and no-op semantics.

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 no explanation. The description covers mutation, cascade, partial-update semantics, and all parameters. The only material gap for a mutating tool with no annotations is permission/auth context.

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, and it documents all five parameters: module_id, name (empty = unchanged), position (omit = unchanged, 1-based), published (omit = unchanged), and course_id (defaults to CANVAS_DEFAULT_COURSE_ID). Each parameter gains meaning not present in the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit or publish a module') and immediately flags that it mutates the course. An agent can distinguish it from create_module and list_modules by the verb. It stops short of naming a sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Explains the key usage context: publishing a module also publishes its items, which is how a week's content goes live. It also clarifies partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'). No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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