record_practice_review

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

The description explicitly warns that the tool 'Changes stored DeepTutor learning data,' which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) by clarifying the nature of the write operation. It also adds a caution to check ID and values and to call only on explicit request, providing important behavioral context for a mutation tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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, comprising two sentences with no fluff. The warning is front-loaded, immediately alerting the agent to the data-changing nature and the need for authorization. The structure efficiently conveys the main purpose and key cautions without repetition.

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 write operation with seven parameters and only minimal annotations, the description provides essential warnings about data modification and authorization requirements. Combined with the fully documented schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the critical context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions, such as mention of the confirm flag's purpose, are already handled by the schema, so the completeness is high.

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 provides 100% coverage, with each parameter fully described. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the importance of 'current version' and 'unique request ID.' While these hints are useful, they largely paraphrase schema details, so the baseline score of 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action clearly: 'Record a completed review' using specific details (current version and unique request ID). This gives a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the action is distinct enough among the listed tools; a slight deduction for lacking explicit sibling distinction.

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 a clear condition for when to use the tool: 'call only when the learner explicitly requests this action.' This is a useful usage guideline that prevents misuse. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool relative to other review/answer tools like check_practice_answer, so guidance is partial.

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