aeroedu_lesson_add

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

Annotations provide no read/idempotent hints; description adds that it returns lesson_id and explains type-specific fields. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or confirmation that it creates a resource, which is partially inferred.

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?

Description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently covers purpose, types, and return value with no waste.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, description explains the 5 types and their fields, and return value. Fields like order and duration_minutes are only in schema, but still documented. Minor gap: no explanation of behavioral implications like creation confirmation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about which fields correspond to which lesson type, but does not significantly extend beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Thêm' (add) and resource 'bài học vào chương' (lesson to a chapter). It lists 5 specific types with their required fields and indicates return value, distinguishing from sibling tools that add blocks.

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 implies use for adding lessons to chapters but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like aeroedu_block_add_* tools. There is no exclusion guidance.

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