Update learning depth or workflow state

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

Annotations already provide readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds the constraint that this is for non-verified workflow states, which clarifies the behavioral scope. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context about what the mutation does and its boundary (not marking mastery).

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds the critical exclusion in a clear, direct manner. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, and 2 enums, the description covers only the broad purpose and a single exclusion. It does not explain parameter semantics, typical usage contexts, or how it fits with sibling tools beyond record_verification. The agent would need to inspect the schema thoroughly to use this correctly, which the description should partially compensate for.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter explanation. It mentions 'depth' and 'workflow state' but does not explain the meaning of 'desired_depth' vs 'status', the role of 'reason', or whether they can be set together. The agent is left without guidance on how to fill the parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('learner-selected depth or non-verified workflow state'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from record_verification by stating what it cannot do, making it easy for an agent to differentiate from the sibling that handles mastery.

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 a clear when-not-to-use and an alternative ('cannot mark mastery; use record_verification for that'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool (e.g., when updating a node's depth or workflow state), leaving that to inference. The exclusion is explicit, but the positive usage condition is implied rather than stated.

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