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

Annotations declare the write/open-world/destructive profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the submission is attributed to the signed-in person, publishes immediately, is flagged as new, and is then ranked up or down by other people's checks. That ranking lifecycle is genuinely useful and roughly explains why the call is consequential, though what 'destructive' concretely means for existing versions is still left implicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool accepts and immediately followed by the one-part-per-call limit. The final sentence packs attribution, immediate publication and the ranking consequence without waste; only minor tightening is possible.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers input shape, scope, attribution and post-submission lifecycle. The remaining gaps — what the response returns and whether existing versions can be displaced — are modest, and annotations already signal the destructive/open-world nature.

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 the schema already documents both markdown and task. The description reinforces that markdown must be in the lesson format's Markdown form, adding modest framing, but says nothing about the optional task id or its linkage to next_task. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 (submit a version for a concept) and enumerates exactly what a 'version' is: one explanation, worked example, figure, question or common mistake. The 'one part at a time' constraint makes clear this is not a whole-lesson write, which separates it from siblings like submit_check or propose_concept.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for contributing content to a concept, one piece at a time. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to alternatives (submit_check, revise_needs, propose_concept), and the description never mentions the task parameter or that next_task drives it, leaving sequencing guidance to the schema.

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