record_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that lessons persist across sessions and are 'curated semantic memories,' which is useful. But it does not cover duplication behavior, whether existing lessons with the same text are updated, or any permission/ownership implications.

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 well-structured docstring with a clear one-sentence summary followed by compact Args/Returns sections. Every line earns its place, and the format is easy to scan. It could be slightly tighter but is appropriately sized.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks usage context (when to prefer this over other recording tools) and second-order behaviors like how these memories are later retrieved or managed. No annotations exist to fill these gaps.

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. The Args section adds 'Comma-separated tags (optional)' for tags, which clarifies format and optionality. However, 'lesson: The lesson text' adds little beyond the schema's type and title, providing only minimal semantic enrichment.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Record a durable lesson learned.' It also adds context that lessons are stored as curated semantic memories persisting across sessions, which hints at a distinction from other record_* tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or compare with siblings like record_hypothesis or record_decision.

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 tool versus other recording tools, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected.

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