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

The annotations already flag this as a non-read, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it creates a draft, restores Underlayer exports exactly, salvages other packages with warnings about missing data. It also discloses the plan requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, all information-dense: main function, import-fidelity behavior, routing alternative, and plan requirement. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 two-parameter import tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior, warnings, prerequisite, and the alternative endpoint. The presence of an output schema means the response shape does not need to be restated, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (zipBase64 and title). The description reinforces that the zip is base64-encoded and that the result is a draft, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a draft course from a base64-encoded SCORM .zip.' It also distinguishes this tool from the bulk import endpoint and clarifies the provenance-dependent behavior (exact restore vs salvaged import), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: for bulk migration use POST /api/v1/courses/import/scorm, which implies this tool is for single imports. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires the Scale plan or higher'), making when and whether to call this tool clear.

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