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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that unpublished lessons are hidden from students, that a section of entirely unpublished lessons is also hidden, that the parent course must be published/enrollable, and that the action reaches other people requiring user confirmation plus an app-scoped Cotlet API key. This is rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and most sentences earn their place. The two confirmation sentences ('By default you confirm each call... you can switch that off' followed by 'Reaches other people: confirm with the user before each call') are slightly redundant and can read as tension, costing a point.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool this covers everything an agent needs: the effect on visibility, the section-level side effect, the course-level precondition, confirmation policy, and auth requirements. Nothing material is missing.

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 course_id, lesson_id, and the published flag (with its default) are already fully documented. The description's 'or unpublish it' hints at the published parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Publish a lesson') plus the bidirectional capability ('or unpublish it'), and clarifies it maps to the editor's Publish/Unpublish. An agent can distinguish this state-change tool from siblings like update_lesson or get_lesson without opening any schema.

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 clear when-to-use context (make a lesson visible to enrolled students) and a prerequisite (the course must be published and enrollable). It does not, however, explicitly name or route to alternative siblings such as update_lesson for other edits, so it stops short of the top tier.

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