lesson_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses locality ('stays on this machine'), downstream effect ('shows up from the next browser_open on that page (map_traps)'), and a hard content constraint ('describe the page, never a person; no personal data'). It omits failure/overwrite behavior and any cap on how many pitfalls are kept.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative and timing, then the format, then persistence, then the safety constraint — no filler sentences, and the example earns its place by showing the expected sentence shape.

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 3-param local-write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers when, what, where it persists, and privacy limits. Remaining gaps (behavior on duplicate pitfalls, whether an existing lesson can be amended, what a call returns) are minor but not negligible.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by prescribing that 'text' be one plain sentence including what worked, with a concrete example, and by implying that the optional 'page' scopes the pitfall to a single page of the site. It does not address the 5-200 character bound beyond 'one plain sentence'.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'record a pitfall you hit on a mapped site', with timing ('after a task') and a format constraint. It distinguishes itself from generic memory tools by tying the record to a mapped site/page and to map_traps, though it never names the nearest sibling (memory_record) explicitly.

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 trigger condition is clear and actionable ('After a task: record a pitfall you hit on a mapped site'), and the example clarifies what qualifies. It gives no explicit exclusion against memory_record / map_learned, so the agent must infer which store to use.

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