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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that there is no edit history, replacement is irreversible, and concurrent modifications are rejected with 409 instead of silently overwriting. This is critical behavioral context for a destructive mutation and is fully consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 dense, purposeful sentences front-load the action and immediately warn about irreversibility. Every clause earns its place, and the critical get_lesson-then-update workflow is stated concisely.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and minimal schema descriptions, this definition provides the essential context: what changes, what cannot be undone, and how to avoid data loss via optimistic concurrency. Nothing critical 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the concurrency semantics of updated_at and identifying title and document as the updatable fields. It does not explain lesson_id or nullability, but the schema covers those structural details.

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 clearly states the action ('Меняет') and specific resource elements ('название и/или документ урока'). It distinguishes this as an update operation on an existing lesson, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like create_lesson or publish_course.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: first call get_lesson, then pass updated_at when replacing a document, and expect a 409 if the lesson changed since then. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives such as create_lesson, but the workflow is clearly stated.

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