brain_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the write/persist effect and adds the useful auto-reindexing side effect, but it does not mention whether duplicate lessons overwrite or append, whether authorization is needed, or what happens to existing index entries. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly more structure could pack parameter guidance into the second sentence, but as written it is a model of brevity.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. It fails to explain parameter roles, overwrite/idempotency behavior, indexing side effects, or when this tool is preferable to the write/append/log siblings. Even with an output schema, the missing context leaves an agent uncertain about 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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the four parameters. The path hint ('knowledge/agent-lessons/') vaguely suggests agent/category may organize storage, and parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description adds no explicit semantics for body, agent, category, or context.

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 states a specific verb ('Persist'), a specific resource type ('reusable lesson'), and an explicit target path ('knowledge/agent-lessons/'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic persistence siblings like brain_write and brain_append by focusing on the lesson-specific purpose and auto-reindexing.

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 phrase 'reusable lesson' implies this tool is for storing knowledge worth retaining, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over brain_write or brain_log, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage context is only implied, not specified.

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