LessonPackagesSetPackage

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false and idempotent=false, and the description just says 'Set', adding little beyond that mutation occurs. It doesn't disclose whether an existing package is overwritten, whether billing is affected, or what side effects follow, so there is minimal added behavioral context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though at the cost of omitting useful context.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description is too sparse to fully steer an agent. It doesn't explain return values, preconditions, effects on existing package assignments, or how body fields relate to the package.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself doesn't clarify the body fields, but the schema already documents them, even though some entries are terse (e.g. 'integer (required)' for pupilId/classId).

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 uses the verb 'Set' with the resource 'lesson package' and names the target ('a pupil and class'), which makes the core action reasonably specific. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools such as LessonPackagesUpdatePackagePeriod or LessonPackagesWriteOffLessons, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related package tools. The one-sentence description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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