advance_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not: it does not say whether the advance is persisted, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the step is out of order, or what the response contains. The only behavioral content is the semantic caveat that completion is not mastery, which is useful framing but not operational detail.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is well-sized, though the second clause is a semantic caveat rather than the operational content an agent most needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a state-mutating tool with zero annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no usage context, the description leaves major gaps about persistence, ordering, and prerequisites.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only loosely implies a 'lesson' and a 'step'; there is no explanation of lesson_id format, whether step is 1-indexed or 0-indexed, or valid ranges.

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 states a specific verb ('Mark ... complete') and resource ('a lesson step'), so the agent can distinguish it from siblings like start_lesson or get_learner_progress. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The clause about mastery hints at intent but does not tell an agent in what situation to call this rather than record_training_attempt or start_lesson.

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