tutor_record_mastery

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral detail that a score ≥0.7 triggers advancement to the next concept, which is not obvious from annotations alone. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. First sentence states the core action and range, second sentence adds the critical advancement condition. Every word 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks context about session validity, what happens if no next concept, and the role of the optional 'note' parameter. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already provides full parameter documentation. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema conveys, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool records concept mastery with a 0–1 score and specifies a side effect (advancement at ≥0.7). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., tutor_turn, skill_grade) by focusing on mastery recording and curriculum progression.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like skill_grade or tutor_turn. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must be active, concept exists) or when not to use it.

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