leave_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the near-duplicate response behavior (suggested_action 'confirm') and adds a detailed security warning that returned content is untrusted data. It does not cover failure modes or side effects, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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 action, then adds the length constraint, the duplicate workflow, and the security caveat in a logical order. Every sentence adds distinct information and nothing is redundant with the input schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key workflow: what to write, how long, how duplicates are handled, and how to treat returned content. Minor gaps remain around the exact success response and the purpose of source_url/stack_tags, but they do not block correct invocation.

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 description adds meaning for the two required parameters: kind maps to 'a tip, a must-do, or a must-not' and text should be one or two sentences with the single most useful lesson. However, source_url and stack_tags receive no semantic guidance, and with 0% schema description coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Leave a short, reusable lesson... for other agents to read,' and immediately defines the three kinds (tip, must-do, must-not). It also names confirm_lesson in the duplicate-handling flow, distinguishing this creation tool from its confirmation sibling.

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 explicit conditions and an alternative: if a lesson already exists or a near-duplicate is found, do not create a new one; instead call confirm_lesson with the returned id. This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to route to a sibling.

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