publish_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: server-side validation, red-light blocking on FAIL, and setting published_at on PASS. It also notes yellow-light manual review does not block. While it doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., idempotency replay), the core state transition and failure condition are explicit.

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 sentences efficiently convey the workflow: input, validation gate, and outcome branches. The use of domain-specific metaphors (红灯清单, 翻牌) is succinct but may be opaque to some agents. No wasted words; structure is front-loaded with the action.

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 covers the main scenario well for a 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool: publish gates, validation outcomes, and side effects. It lacks explicit details on PASS return values and broader error handling, but the core state transition and blocking condition are sufficiently specified. Adequate for agent decision-making.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both lesson_id and idempotency_key are already well-documented. The tool description adds context that lessons originate from add_lesson as drafts, which helps interpret lesson_id's semantics, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: publishing a lesson to learners (上架). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing add_lesson's draft state and positioning this as the Publish Gate. The verb+resource+scope is 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 implies usage after add_lesson, as it explains the draft-to-publish workflow. It mentions verify_prep's same validation logic, providing context but not explicit alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call, though not as prescriptive as naming alternatives.

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