set_mastery_review_settings

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by warning that it 'Changes stored DeepTutor learning data' and emphasizes the need for explicit confirmation, which is critical behavioral context for a mutation. No contradiction with annotations; the destructiveHint=false is consistent with a non-destructive but data-changing operation.

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 two short sentences: a warning and an instruction. It front-loads the most critical warning and then states the action and constraints. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description provides the key operational details: the retention range, the need for confirmation, and the warning about data changes. It does not describe return values or error handling, but the output schema likely covers the return format. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema describes path_id and confirm, but desired_retention has no description. The description adds the valid range (0.70-0.99) for desired_retention, which is essential. It also reinforces the meaning of confirm by tying it to explicit learner request. With 67% schema coverage, the description effectively compensates for the gap.

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 action: 'Set desired retention' and the resource (mastery review settings). It distinguishes from the read sibling get_mastery_review_settings by the verb 'set'. The warning about changing stored data adds context, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for reading, relying on the name itself to imply the 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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'call only when the learner explicitly requests this action.' It also advises checking the target ID and values, which is a safety guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives, though the set/get pairing is obvious from sibling names.

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