bind_special_to_lesson

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: it only updates a single column (special_ids) via partial update, never performs full-row upsert, and references a historical bug. This clearly informs the agent of the mutation's scope and safety.

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 yet comprehensive, structured with a main purpose statement, a historical note, a parameter list, and return shapes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, multiple actions, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: actions, parameters, return values, and crucial behavioral constraints. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description entirely compensates. It explains each parameter (lesson_id, special_id, action) and notes that special_id is ignored for action=materials. It also details the return format for each action, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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: to bind, unbind, or check bound specials to a lesson material slot. It specifies the resource (lesson material slot) and distinguishes between three distinct actions, making the purpose very specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use each action (bind, unbind, materials) and provides a historical caution against full-row upsert. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like bind_book_node_to_lesson, so the agent must infer from the tool name and context which tool is appropriate.

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