create_repertoire_drill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses one trait: expected moves are hidden from the caller. It says nothing about what gets created, whether it mutates learner state, what happens if the FEN is not in the repertoire, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. However it is arguably under-specified rather than concise for a state-creating tool with two undocumented parameters, so it sits at minimum viable rather than exemplary.

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 described, but the description still leaves critical semantics unexplained: what a recall drill is, how fen and learner_id interact, and what committing it does. For a creation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is not enough.

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 both parameters. The description does not mention 'fen' or 'learner_id' at all, so an agent gets no help understanding that fen is the drill's starting position or how learner_id scopes the hidden expected moves. This is the main gap, since the schema is bare titles only.

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 verb and resource ('Create a repertoire recall drill') that clearly marks it as the creation counterpart to get_due_repertoire_drill and submit_repertoire_move. The clause 'without exposing its expected moves' adds a distinctive scope note, though it doesn't explain what a drill actually is or contains.

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 indication of when to create a drill versus retrieving one (get_due_repertoire_drill) or submitting a move (submit_repertoire_move), and no prerequisites such as whether the FEN must already belong to the learner's imported repertoire.

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