add_lesson_patch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so thoroughly. It states that teacher_note appends without replacing the body, and erratum keeps the original text while placing the patch alongside, never rewriting the lesson. This clearly communicates non-destructive side effects and the constraints on each patch kind.

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 a single dense sentence but every clause carries essential information. It front-loads the purpose, then the three laws, then the progress-check directive. There is no redundancy or filler; it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates. It covers the decision tree (unstarted/in-progress/completed), the appropriate patch kind for each state, the non-destructive behavior, and the prerequisite progress check. For a tool with six parameters and nuanced rules, this is remarkably 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining when to use each kind (teacher_note vs erratum) based on lesson progress, and provides a concrete example for source_attribution. While not every parameter is elaborated, the added context for kind and source_attribution elevates the score.

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's function: adding a teacher note or erratum patch to a lesson. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool update_lesson, noting that unstarted lessons should be updated directly rather than patched. The verb 'add' and resource 'lesson patch' are specific 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: unstarted lessons should use update_lesson, in-progress lessons only allow teacher_note, and completed lessons only allow erratum. It even instructs the agent to check lesson_progress status before deciding, naming the exact endpoint. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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