update_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the effect of empty strings and defaults but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Acceptable for a simple update tool.

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 reasonably concise and structured as an args list. It is front-loaded with the main action, but the parameter details could be slightly more compact. No unnecessary sentences.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is fairly complete. It covers all input parameters and their behavior. Missing information about return values is likely covered by the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. Each parameter is explained with its role and how to indicate no change (e.g., 'empty = no change'), providing substantial value beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 updates a lesson's fields, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_lesson, get_lesson, delete_lesson by focusing on updating existing lessons.

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 explicitly tells users to pass empty strings for fields they don't want to change, providing clear usage guidance. It does not directly compare to alternatives but implies use when modifying existing lessons.

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