lesson_violation

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the once-per-conversation-per-lesson-per-day counting rule and the aggregation that flips the lesson to a guard at LESSON_VIOLATION_THRESHOLD. It stops short of describing conflict/error behavior, but the added aggregation semantics are valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource in the first line, then the disambiguation, then the counting rule and threshold consequence. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; only the '#228' tracker reference and brevity of the evidence clause keep it from a perfect score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, routing, parameter intent, and the downstream threshold behavior. Minor gaps remain (auth requirements, what happens if slug doesn't exist), but for a 2-parameter tool this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: `slug` identifies the already-covered lesson, and `evidence` is constrained to a one-line repeat description with an explicit exclusion ('no secrets or transcript dumps'). It does not specify slug format or length limits, but the semantic role of each parameter is clear.

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 and resource: recording that an EXISTING lesson's rule was broken again. It explicitly positions itself against the nearest sibling, lesson_append, by saying 'instead of appending a duplicate lesson,' so an agent can distinguish this from the other lesson_* tools without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both the when ('the dialog shows the user correcting behavior that `slug` already covers') and the when-not/alternative ('instead of appending a duplicate lesson'). The routing decision is fully explicit.

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