lesson_update

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: it reveals partial-update semantics ('Only given fields are changed'), data normalization behavior ('unmangles field-tag corruption'), and the destructive delete path. It omits return shape, reversibility, and error behavior, but the highest-risk traits are disclosed.

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 sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then scoping behavior, then delete usage. Each clause earns its place and the structure is well front-loaded.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (what changes, corruption handling, deletion) but leaves gaps: no return-value description, no behavior for a nonexistent lesson_id, and no statement about update reversibility.

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 only 42%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial semantics: partial-update means all non-lesson_id fields are optional and only provided ones take effect, and delete:true is the deletion switch. However, the undocumented enums (status, severity) and content fields (root_cause, resolution, prevention, projects) get no elaboration, though their names are self-explanatory.

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 specific verbs ('Correct or delete') and a specific resource ('a recorded lesson'), adding meaning beyond the tool name. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling lesson_record (creation) and lesson_query (reading) as the mutation path.

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 implies usage context ('delete a bad entry', 'Use delete:true to remove a bad entry') and ties behavior to lesson_record, but never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over knowledge_update, lesson_record, or lesson_query. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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