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

Annotations declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write with no destructive hint. Beyond that, the description adds the permission requirement ('Needs permission to change tasks') and the fact that an unknown group name silently creates a new group, both of which are behavioral context not in the annotations. It does not disclose response contents, but no output schema exists and the write semantics are otherwise clear.

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 purpose and definition, then progressively adding triggers, prerequisites, and alternatives. It runs six lines and one clause (the near-miss list) partially repeats the following sentence, but nearly every sentence carries actionable content.

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 9-parameter, single-required-field write tool with no output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant essentials: intention, trigger conditions, dedup step, grouping, task linkage, and permission need. It leaves secondary fields (whatHappened, doDifferently, category, project, groupId) entirely to the schema, which documents them fully, so this is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including the group/groupId precedence rules. The description reinforces the group enum and task linkage but adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema states; the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Record a lesson learned') and goes further by defining what counts as a lesson (near miss, wrong assumption, missed step, slow fix). It explicitly demarcates itself from the sibling fenbs_apply_lesson ('A lesson is not a rule'), so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions ('when you finish a task that taught something, or when the person you work for says "we learned that..."'), a prerequisite ('Search fenbs_list_lessons first'), and an explicit alternative with its condition (fenbs_apply_lesson when the lesson should hold from now on). Nothing is left to inference.

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