ddflow_lesson_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys persistence and deduplication intent ('never re-learned') and a transferability quality bar, but it does not describe write semantics such as append-only behavior, idempotency, what gets replaced, or what response to expect.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by concrete triggers and a quality bar. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 when-to-use guidance is strong and the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits any sense of what the call returns, how the recorded lesson is later retrieved, or how it interacts with sibling tools like ddflow_lesson_search and the reconstruction workflow.

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 of 3 applies even though the description adds no parameter-level syntax or relationships. The 'transferable rule' guidance hints at how to fill fields like rule/why/how, but it does not map to specific 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 the action ('Record a lesson'), the resource (a lesson in the corpus), and the intended outcome ('never re-learned'). The verb distinguishes it from sibling read/search tools like ddflow_lesson_search, and the 'lesson' resource separates it from task_add, phase_add, decision_add, and research_add.

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?

Provides explicit trigger conditions: 'Use after any bug, any operator correction, any surprise.' It also gives a quality requirement for the content ('Make the rule transferable'). It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare against alternatives, so it falls just short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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