update_lesson

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses side effects (snapshot, revision increment), strict rejection without revision_reason, mindmap behavior (optional, not generated by default), and the teaching/technical distinction with default and learner-facing implications. This is highly informative.

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 paragraph but front-loads the purpose and provides essential behavioral details. It is somewhat run-on, yet every sentence is informative and there is no fluff. It could benefit from clearer segmentation, but remains effective and concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core mutation flow, mandatory fields, and nuanced revision_kind semantics. It does not mention return values or some straightforward params (title, lesson_id), but those are self-evident and partially covered by schema descriptions. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct usage.

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 60%, not low enough to demand full compensation. The description adds meaningful guidance for revision_kind (with the teaching/technical heuristic) and modality_declarations.mindmap (same as add_lesson, no penalty), but it does not enrich other parameters like idempotency_key or evidence beyond what the schema already provides.

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 begins with '修订已有 lesson' (revise an existing lesson), clearly identifying the verb and resource. It goes further to describe the revision workflow (snapshot to lesson_revisions, apply patch, increment revision), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_lesson and add_lesson_patch.

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 for existing lessons and mandates revision_reason, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over add_lesson_patch or other revision-related siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparison, though the revision semantics provide some context.

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