Mark Lecture Complete

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not say what state changes, whether completion is reversible, or how it interacts with progress tracking.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good, but for a 7-parameter destructive mutation it is sized too small to be 'appropriate.' It is concise at the cost of being underspecified.

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 a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested payload, mutually exclusive payload/payload_file body flags, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It omits the confirm-gating requirement and the payload-vs-payload_file exclusivity that an agent must respect to call it correctly.

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%, including the notable 'confirm' and 'payload' semantics, so the structured data carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb+resource: marking a given course lecture as complete. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from siblings such as get_lecture or get_course_progress, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no acknowledgment of the destructive/irreversible nature. A reader cannot infer when it is appropriate to call.

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