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 discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Mark as completed'), grants XP, updates streak, and schedules spaced-repetition review. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the lesson is already completed, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core action and efficiently lists additional effects in a single, well-structured sentence. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description covers the main action and effects but is incomplete. It doesn't detail return values, error cases, or full parameter meanings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for robust 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'levels you have access to', which loosely relates to the 'level' parameter, but doesn't explain 'slug' or 'locale' (e.g., what a slug represents or locale's impact). With 3 parameters and minimal semantic addition beyond the schema, it falls short of adequately clarifying usage.

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 action ('Mark a lesson as completed') and resource ('lesson'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it grants XP, updates streak, and schedules spaced-repetition review. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'academy_quiz_submit' or 'academy_review_grade', which might also mark progress, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 some context with 'Only works for levels you have access to', which implies a prerequisite, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'academy_lesson' or 'academy_next_lesson', nor does it give clear exclusions or comparisons to other progress-related tools.

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