Update Course Lesson Progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds that it 'Changes community state' and enforces a confirm gate, which is useful context, but it never states what state is altered or what is destroyed.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the opening sentence simply echoes the title and earns no place. The second sentence carries the only substantive content, so the structure is efficient but under-loaded for a 7-parameter destructive tool.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with 7 parameters, nested payload, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits what changes, whether progress is reversible, and how payload/payload_file/body-flag alternatives interact.

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 only 57 percent across 7 parameters, including a nested payload object, yet the description adds no meaning beyond referencing confirm=true. The account-credential-selection nuance, status enum, and payload/body-flag interaction are left entirely to the schema.

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 first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the tool title 'Update Course Lesson Progress', making it a tautology rather than an explanation. Nothing distinguishes it from the sibling update_course_lesson, nor does it clarify that this marks a member's per-lesson completion status. An agent gets the resource but no added meaning beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_course_lesson, reorder_course_lessons, or get_course_lesson. The only conditional, 'requires confirm=true for the user-requested action', is a gating constraint rather than usage routing and largely duplicates the confirm parameter's own schema description.

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