mark_helpful

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that marking affects lesson surfacing, but it does not state whether the action is reversible, idempotent, user-specific, or what happens on repeated calls.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the motivational purpose is included without bloat.

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 simple 2-parameter action, the required lesson_id is clear from the schema and the purpose is clear from the description. But the lack of annotations and any statement about repeated calls or side effects leaves an agent without a complete behavioral model.

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 50%, and lesson_id lacks a description in the schema. The description's 'a lesson' only weakly ties it to the required parameter. The token parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds little beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Mark a lesson') and states the intended effect ('this is how good lessons surface'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling mark_stale, though it does not name the alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'that actually helped you' provides an implied usage condition, separating this from marking stale content. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor references to alternatives like mark_stale.

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