lesson_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: the tool refuses deletion for certain lesson sources unless force=True, and it restricts force to human-initiated corrections. This is valuable context beyond the input schema.

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 concise with three focused sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately adding behavioral and usage guidance without wasted words.

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 has an output schema (not shown), return values may be documented there. The description covers the core functionality and critical behavioral nuance, though it could mention whether deletion is permanent or any prerequisites.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'force' parameter's role in overriding refusal, but does not describe 'slug' beyond the initial sentence. This adds partial meaning but leaves room for improvement.

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 one materialized lesson section by slug') and distinguishes it from siblings like lesson_append, lesson_get, and lesson_list by being the dedicated removal tool.

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 explicitly specifies conditions for using the 'force' parameter: it is required for lessons with source=foreground or source=user, and it emphasizes that curator/evolve cleanup should never pass force. This provides clear guidance, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools for non-removal actions.

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