submit_teaching_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important side effects—updating concept progress and scheduling review—which indicate mutation, but omits details like permissions, error handling, reversibility, or what 'verified candidate lines' means operationally.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the primary action and lists the rest efficiently, but the list of four comma-separated actions makes it slightly dense. It avoids filler, so it is concise.

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 performs multiple state-changing operations and has two required parameters with no descriptive coverage, yet the description offers no detail on inputs or when to use it. The output schema covers return values, but invocation context and parameter meaning are missing.

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?

The description provides no information about the two parameters (session_id, move), and the schema has 0% description coverage. An agent must guess the format and meaning of both required arguments.

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 enumerates four specific actions (assess, explain, update, schedule), giving a clear picture of what happens when the tool is called. It is distinct from sibling tools like submit_tactic_move by the 'teaching' context and mention of concept progress, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_repertoire_move, submit_tactic_move, or tutor_move. The phrase 'Assess an answer' implies a teaching-session context, but no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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