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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, not idempotent), so the description carries the rest and does so well: it explains that Underlayer-exported packages are restored exactly while foreign packages are salvaged with limited fidelity and warnings, and flags the Build-plan requirement. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the fidelity caveat, followed by routing and plan prerequisites. No sentence is filler.

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?

With an output schema handling return values, the description covers purpose, input format, fidelity behavior, warnings, bulk alternative, and plan gating. An agent has everything needed to decide and to call 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 already 100%, so both parameters (zipBase64, title) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, size, or format detail beyond what the schema states, 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?

States a specific verb (Creates), resource (a draft course), and input format (base64-encoded SCORM .zip) in the first clause. This clearly distinguishes it from create_course and generate_course, which produce courses by other means, and pairs naturally against the sibling export_scorm.

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?

Gives explicit context for when to use the tool (restoring/migrating a SCORM package) and routes bulk migration to POST /api/v1/courses/import/scorm instead. It does not, however, contrast against sibling tools like create_course, so the routing is incomplete.

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