dibs_lesson_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the file location, git sharing mechanism, and the type of content. It does not mention overwrite behavior or auto-commit details, but the core side effect (writing a markdown file) is clear.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and destination, and the second sets content boundaries. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple add-tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, storage location, and content policy. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention potential file overwrite or naming behavior.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the body's content (gotchas, conventions, fixes) but does not provide parameter-level syntax beyond the 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 tool saves a lesson as a markdown file under .dibs/lessons/, with a specific verb ('Save') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lesson_search and notes by focusing on persistent, git-shared 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?

Provides explicit when-not guidance ('not routine work logs') and describes the appropriate content ('gotchas, conventions, hard-won fixes'). It does not name alternative tools, but the exclusion helps agents decide when this tool is appropriate.

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