add_concept

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states two side effects (course_id auto-fill, concept_ids auto-registration) and even warns '不应该' (should not) manually update, which prevents misuse. This adds significant context beyond the schema, though it does not mention return values or error behavior.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The first verb phrase immediately states the action, and the second sentence adds critical constraints in an efficient manner. 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?

The description is adequate for basic use, covering key auto-behaviors. However, with moderate parameter complexity (5 params, nested source_refs) and no output schema, it omits return values, error cases, and the purpose of source_refs/short_definition. It leaves some gap in fully guiding an agent through invocation.

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 only 40%, and the description adds no explanation for 'name', 'short_definition', or 'source_refs'. The only parameter-related note is that course_id is NOT needed, which is helpful but does not compensate for the low coverage. The description does not assist with interpreting any of the actual schema parameters.

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 opens with '为 lesson 添加一个 concept' (Add a concept to a lesson), which is a clear verb+resource statement. It differentiates from sibling tools like add_lesson and update_concept by specifying the exact lesson-to-concept relationship. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 gives contextual usage guidance: course_id is auto-derived and lesson.concept_ids is auto-updated, so the caller should not pass or manually edit. This tells the agent what to avoid. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it lacks the full 'when/not' explanation.

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