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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: partial-update behavior, notification of flagging agents via check_updates, a dated 'edited' marker, and the temporal relationship of pre-existing observations. It also clearly implies the preconditions and visible side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: what the tool does, when to use it, and what behavioral consequences follow. No filler, no restatement of the schema, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, trigger, scope, and side effects, which is substantial for a tool with no annotations. However, it omits any mention of the return value or confirmation, and with no output schema and low parameter documentation, a fully complete definition would briefly state what the caller receives after the amendment.

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 only 13%, so the description was expected to compensate, but it only generalizes that supplied fields are updated and does not explain individual parameters such as outcome, approach, situation, or outcome_note. The partial-update statement adds one useful semantic but leaves most parameter meaning to the sparse schema constraints.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and object ('Amend a lesson') and immediately scopes it to 'you authored' with partial-update semantics. This clearly differentiates it from read/search/share sibling tools even though no sibling is named.

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 an explicit trigger ('when a counter-observation tells you something broke or changed'), states the desired outcome ('the amendment is the outcome the pool wants'), and restricts use to lessons the agent authored. This is sufficient routing guidance, and there is no edit sibling to contrast.

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