lessons_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool never deletes (non-destructive), updates statuses (superseded/deprecated), and affects query results. It also implies a role restriction. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or error handling, leaving some behavioral traits undocumented.

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 key action and role restriction. Every sentence adds value: role, action, behavioral guarantee, and effect on queries. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, role, and core behavior but omits details on dryRun, reason usage, and return value. It does not explain the difference between superseded and deprecated statuses beyond the pointer. While adequate for a curation tool, it leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description adds meaning for the status and supersededBy parameters by explaining they mark lessons as superseded (with a pointer) or deprecated. It does not clarify the dryRun parameter, the reason parameter (beyond being required), or the ids parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but lacks full parameter explanations.

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's purpose: 'retire lessons by judgment' with specific verbs (retire, marks) and resource (lessons). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lessons_query by explicitly noting that retired lessons stop appearing in lessons_query, and from lessons_apply/lessons_candidate by being a retirement action.

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 specifies 'Curator only' as a role restriction, and contrasts with deletion by stating 'Never deletes'. It gives context for when to use this tool (to retire lessons) and the effect on visibility. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tool names hint at other actions.

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