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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real nuance: locked outcomes remain locked until owner revision, existing entries require expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency), and identical retries leave history unchanged. These go beyond what the structured annotations convey, though auth/permission requirements are still implicit.

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?

Four dense sentences, no filler, with the approval precondition and locking rule front-loaded before the concurrency and idempotency notes. Efficient and well-ordered, though the opening sentence packs multiple clauses.

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 described. For a 7-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description covers the critical safety/state behaviors (approval gate, lock, expectedRevision, idempotency) but leaves the semantics of most input fields and the status enum unexplained.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains expectedRevision and touches on status ('locked'), but says nothing about programId, title, content, tags, revisionReason, or the meaning of the status enum values (LOCKED/DEVELOPING/UNKNOWN/RETIRED), leaving most parameters uninterpreted.

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 ('Save') and resource ('what a module must leave the learner able to do'), making it clear this records a module-level learning outcome. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling record_module, but the scope wording differentiates it reasonably well.

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 gives one concrete precondition ('only after the owner approves it') and a state rule for locked outcomes, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over record_module or the other record_* siblings, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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