lesson_remove

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds useful behavioral details: it refuses certain sources without the force flag, and specifies that force is only for human-initiated corrections. However, it does not describe what happens when the lesson is already removed (completing idempotency) or any side effects.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core action, refusal condition, and usage guideline. No filler or redundant information. Front-loaded with the primary function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, destructive, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key usage constraints and rationale. It could be improved by noting idempotency behavior or what happens if slug does not exist, but it is largely complete for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the role of both parameters: `slug` identifies the lesson, and `force` is required for certain sources. It does not specify the format of slug or other constraints, but provides essential context beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('remove'), the resource ('materialized lesson section'), and the identifier ('by slug'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lesson_append, lesson_get, and lesson_list, which perform different operations on lessons.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it refuses removal for `source=foreground` or `source=user` lessons unless `force=True`, and advises that curator/evolve cleanup should never pass `force`. This clarifies the appropriate context for using the tool.

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