create_tutor_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it 'creates' something ('tutor turn') but does not disclose whether this is persisted, whether it is expensive, whether it requires a prior session, or what state it mutates. For a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient, though perhaps under-specified for the complexity of the tool.

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 6 parameters, one required, a 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema. The description is a single one-line sentence that does not cover parameters, usage context, mutation behavior, or relationship to siblings. It is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 6 parameters. The description does not explain any of fen, intent, history, profile, candidates, or learner_id. The only parameter with an obvious meaning is fen, and even that is left implicit. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: 'Create a grounded tutor turn'. Lists the constituent content (engine evidence, teaching guidance, board actions, speech segments). However it doesn't differentiate from siblings like tutor_move, start_teaching_session, or get_teaching_hint, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The description does not mention when this should be invoked versus tutor_move or get_teaching_hint, leaving the agent to guess.

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