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

The annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds the admin-only authorization requirement, which is useful, but it does not clarify partial-update behavior, reversibility, or exactly what is overwritten beyond the field names.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the authorization constraint. There is no wasted text.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and rich destructive annotations, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It could still be improved by stating whether omitted fields remain unchanged, but the essential behavior is covered.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions explain each parameter, including that an empty video_url removes the video. The tool description only names title, text, and video link and does not add meaningful syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Change a lesson") and enumerates the mutable fields: title, text, and video link. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as create_lesson, get_lesson, and mark_lesson_complete.

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?

The phrase "Admins only" gives an important usage prerequisite and the verb "Change" implies use on an existing lesson rather than creation or retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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