lessons_candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the submission is for review (not direct writing), which implies a non-destructive, pending state. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission, whether the operation is reversible, or if it requires specific permissions. Adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise with two sentences, each adding distinct information. The first sentence explains the core action, and the second sentence mentions project scoping. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete for a tool with nested objects and 4 parameters. It explains the general purpose but lacks return value expectations and deeper behavioral context. Moderately adequate for basic understanding.

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%, and the description only mentions 'project (slug)' among the four parameters. The required 'lessons' array and optional 'task', 'agent', and 'dryRun' parameters are not explained at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool submits lessons for curator review rather than writing directly to the register. It distinguishes the tool's role in a curation workflow, though it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools like lessons_apply which might directly write to the register.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for submitting lessons for curation) and mentions setting a project slug, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools like lessons_query or lessons_supersede. Usage context is implied rather than directly contrasted.

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