academy_progress_complete

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 the mutation and its effects (grants XP, updates streak, schedules spaced-repetition) plus the auth requirement. It omits edge cases like idempotency, but the primary behavior is well covered.

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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite parenthetically. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and auth requirements. Parameter meanings are missing, but the overall usage context is sufficiently complete for a moderately simple tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no explanation of slug, level, or locale. It adds no meaning beyond the schema property names, which is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Mark a lesson complete') and enumerates distinct side effects (XP, streak, spaced-repetition) that clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like academy_quiz_submit or academy_review.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is for completing lessons. The sign-in requirement adds a useful prerequisite, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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