lesson_append

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses file path, idempotent overwrite, markdown body, optional summary as blockquote, and provenance tag. This is thorough for a write operation, though it omits permissions or side effects beyond overwriting.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is slightly verbose with line breaks that could be more concise or formatted as bullet points. Every sentence adds value, but there is room for tighter phrasing.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. It covers the core behaviors (overwrite, markdown, optional summary, provenance) but could mention potential errors or the fact that it overwrites previous lessons with the same title. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward mutation tool.

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%, making the description critical. It adds detailed meaning for all four parameters: title is sluggified to a stable key, body is verbatim markdown, summary is an optional blockquote for TL;DR, and source is a provenance tag. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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's action: 'Materialize a class-level lesson into ~/.threadkeeper/lessons.md.' It specifies the resource (lessons), the destination file, and the idempotent overwrite behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like lesson_get, lesson_list, lesson_remove.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only hints at contexts (review_thread, shadow_review observer) but provides no direct guidance on when to choose lesson_append over other lesson-related tools 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.