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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotency. The description adds the meaningful auth constraint ('Admins only') but says nothing about the destructive aspect or that duplicate titles/lessons can be created – useful context that annotations alone don't convey.

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, action and scope first, permission constraint second — nothing to trim.

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 6-param create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, placement and permissions, but leaves the agent without any hint of what is returned (e.g. a lesson id needed later for mark_lesson_complete) or the published/draft default's implications.

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 parameters are fully documented already; the description's mention of 'text and a video link' just restates body and video_url without adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add a lesson') and its placement ('at the end of a course'), which cleanly separates it from create_course and update_lesson. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Admins only' gives a usable prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus update_lesson (e.g. editing an existing lesson) or create_course, and no note that new lessons are appended rather than positioned.

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