add_learning_path_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds context about target URL forms and the numbering aspect, but does not state whether the tool appends or inserts, whether an existing path is required, authorization needs, side effects, or what happens with position=null. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and the target-type note is directly useful. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 has three parameters, including a nested step object and an optional position, plus no annotations and low schema coverage. The description clarifies only target and never explains slug, position semantics, or how a step is ordered, even though an output schema exists to cover return values.

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 only parameter-level value added is the clarification that target may be a section id, page filename, anchor, or full URL. The required slug and optional position are left undocumented in both the schema and description, and schema coverage is only 33%, so the description does not compensate enough for the remaining 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?

States a specific action ('Add a numbered step') and a precise resource ('the learning path on the landing page'). The verb and object clearly distinguish it from broad path operations like set_learning_path, and no misleading filler is present.

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 the tool is for adding a step to the landing-page learning path, but it never states when to prefer this over set_learning_path or any other sibling. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions, so the guidance is left to inference.

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