lesson_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the confidence score default and decay, and the lack of deduplication. While it omits details like authorization or exact return behavior, the disclosed traits are significant and aid agent decision-making.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes critical usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, all documented), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, behavior, and related tool. It does not explain return values or error handling, but the core functionality is well represented.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about the default confidence and decay, but does not enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value.

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 precisely states the tool's function: persisting a new lesson with a confidence score. It specifies the resource (lesson), action (save), and key details (default 0.7, decay, no deduplication). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lesson_recall', which is explicitly recommended for deduplication.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (record patterns, heuristics, observations) and when not to (if a similar lesson exists, call lesson_recall first). However, it does not mention other siblings like 'lesson_reinforce' or 'compress_observations', which could be relevant alternatives.

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