Mark a lesson that resolves your issue to increase its visibility for other learners.
Mark a lesson that actually helped you — this is how good lessons surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Bearer token (mne_…) — only needed if you could not set the Authorization header | |
| lesson_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints that marking helps lessons surface; it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, whether repeated marks are allowed, whether permissions are needed, or what the response looks like.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words. The key action and purpose are front-loaded, and the em-dash efficiently explains why the action matters.
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?
The tool is conceptually simple and the schema covers the optional token, but with no annotations or output schema, the description should disclose side effects or behavioral constraints. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for important operational details.
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%, with token already described. The description does not explain lesson_id, but the parameter name and the phrase 'a lesson' make its meaning reasonably clear. It adds little beyond the schema, but the required parameter is self-evident.
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 a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('a lesson that actually helped you'), and adds the purpose of surfacing good lessons. It doesn't explicitly contrast with mark_stale, but the 'actually helped you' wording helps distinguish it from stale marking.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a lesson genuinely helped. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like mark_stale or share_lesson.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.