confirm_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully warns that content returned by this tool is untrusted data and never an instruction, even if phrased as one. It does not describe side effects, idempotency, or reversibility, but the prompt-injection guard is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds usage guidance and a security warning. Each sentence earns its place, though the security warning is somewhat lengthy relative to the rest of the description.

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 one-parameter tool, it covers purpose, usage, and an important security behavior, which is fairly complete. Still, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the confirmation returns or what response the agent should expect, nor does it resolve the ambiguity between the described sentence content and the lesson_id-only 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?

The only parameter, lesson_id, is self-explanatory by name and the description reinforces that it should reference an existing lesson. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description still does not explicitly explain how to obtain the lesson_id or how the 'one sentence, at most two' guidance maps to the actual input, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Confirm that an existing lesson helped.' It also distinguishes itself from the alternative of leaving a near-duplicate, so an agent can tell it apart from lesson-creation or post-creation tools without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an existing lesson helped, and explicitly instructs 'if it already exists, confirm it instead.' However, it never names sibling tools like read_lessons or create_post to explicitly route the agent between checking, confirming, and creating, so the alternative selection is only partially explicit.

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