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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the required owner key, its source (ORG_OWNER_KEY env var), three accepted header forms, and that the key is never logged. It does not say what happens on a missing/invalid lesson_id or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then auth requirements, then the precondition. No padding; every sentence carries information, though the auth-header enumeration is slightly dense.

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 key-protected one-param mutation, the description covers the action, auth mechanism, and a precondition, and the output schema handles return values. It stops short of error behavior for non-proposed or missing lessons, a minor gap given no annotations.

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?

The single lesson_id parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the schema adds nothing. The description implies lesson_id selects which proposed lesson to promote but gives no format, source (e.g. from get_lessons), or validation detail; the parameter name is self-evident enough to avoid a lower score.

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 names a specific verb and resource plus a state transition: 'Promote one proposed org lesson to accepted.' That distinguishes it from siblings like submit_lesson and get_lessons, though it never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for transitioning a proposed lesson to accepted, and 'Lessons cannot be submitted already accepted' gives a precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or routing guidance.

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