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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds the useful scope constraint that promises/outcomes/rules are out of scope and that the program is private, but it says nothing about duplicate handling (relevant since idempotentHint=false) or required permissions.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. The trailing scope exclusion is slightly abrupt but earns its place as the only routing hint.

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, and the tool is structurally simple with 2 flat params. Still, for a creation tool the description omits any indication of what a program contains or how name/description are used, leaving the agent to guess at invocation content.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it: neither "name" nor "description" is mentioned, and their constraints (1-200 chars, 5000 chars) live only in the schema. An agent gets no semantic guidance on what belongs in the description field versus the program name.

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 ("Create a new private curriculum program") and the qualifier "private" adds a distinguishing attribute. It is clearly separable from list_programs and the record_* siblings, though it never names them directly.

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?

"when the user asks" is a vague trigger that gives no real conditions. The exclusion "Does not save promises, outcomes, or rules" does route the agent away from record_promise / record_module_outcome / record_noncontradiction_rule, which is useful, but those alternatives are never named and no prerequisites are stated.

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