publish_lessons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: it 'marks the session distilled,' and it states lessons are persisted and linked. However, it does not explain what 'distilled' means, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens to previously persisted lessons.

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?

A single sentence communicates the core action, the entity relationship, and the session side effect with no filler or repetition. Every part of the sentence carries information.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description omits how dataset and session_id are used, what 'accepted' means, and what the return/outcome is. It is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation.

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 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate for dataset, lessons, and session_id. It only clarifies that lessons are 'accepted' and linked to 'what they apply to,' leaving dataset and session_id semantics entirely unexplained. The nested schema has some descriptions, but the tool description adds little parameter-level meaning.

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 ('persist') with a specific resource ('accepted lessons as Lesson entities') and states the linking behavior and side effect. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like remember or memify_candidates because it is about persisting lessons and distilling the session.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as remember or memify_candidates. The word 'accepted' implies a prerequisite workflow, but the description never states it or specifies conditions.

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