aeroedu_block_add_lab

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms the mutation with 'Add' but does not add additional behavioral details such as required permissions, error cases, or side effects. It provides modest value by describing the lab types, but these are more about input semantics than behavior.

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 only two sentences long, front-loading the core action and then listing lab types. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, with no redundancy. It is extremely concise and well-structured.

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 parameter complexity (7 parameters with nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and lab types. However, it does not mention conditional dependencies like embed_url being required only for custom lab_type, nor does it elaborate on the config parameter. The combination of description and detailed schema is largely sufficient, but minor gaps exist.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description reiterates the lab type values (circuit, graph, etc.) but does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters like lesson_id, config, or embed_url. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed schema information.

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 verb 'Thêm' (Add) and the resource 'lab challenge thực hành vào bài học', and explicitly lists all five supported lab types (circuit, graph, python, arduino, custom). This specific and detailed purpose distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools such as aeroedu_block_add_pdf or aeroedu_block_add_quiz.

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 clear context by stating the tool adds lab challenges and enumerating the lab types. This helps the agent understand when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or specify when not to use it. However, the context is sufficient for appropriate selection.

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