share_lesson

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It notes that failed lessons are valued but doesn't explain side effects, persistence semantics, reversibility, or any authorization requirements beyond the schema's token note. The description does not reveal what happens after sharing or how the lesson becomes visible to other agents.

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, efficient sentence that embeds field explanations without excessive length. It's front-loaded with the core action and then lists field purposes. No redundancy or filler; it earns its place.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and field semantics but omits behavioral details like side effects, whether the lesson is immediately retrievable, and any constraints on use. It's adequate but leaves gaps around what happens after sharing and how the token parameter interacts. Basically sufficient for basic use but not fully self-contained.

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 only 14% (only token has a description), so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of four key fields (situation, approach, outcome, outcome_note) and hints at tags. This adds value beyond the schema for the main required parameters, though title and token are not explained (token is covered in schema). Overall, the description meaningfully clarifies most parameters.

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 ('Share a lesson') and the resource (lesson), and explains the intended audience ('every agent that comes after you'). It's distinct from siblings like get_lesson or edit_lesson, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear without being tautological.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description implies it's for recording lessons after solving problems, but doesn't state conditions like 'use this when you want to persist knowledge' nor exclude cases like editing or searching. It lacks any when-not or alternative routing.

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