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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description only states that the course itself isn't deleted. It doesn't disclose that the operation is irreversible for the collection membership, nor does it mention any side effects (e.g., what happens to the collection if it becomes empty) or authorization requirements. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds little beyond what annotations imply.

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 single, concise sentence that effectively front-loads the key insight that the course isn't deleted. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though it could have added a hint about usage conditions without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema, but the description could be more complete by stating that the operation is idempotent (annotations already cover that) and by providing guidance on error conditions (e.g., course not in collection). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description doesn't cover all behavioral aspects.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra semantics about the parameters (e.g., that 'id' must be a valid collection or that 'courseId' must be an existing course). Given the high schema coverage, baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the action (removes a course from a collection) and differentiates it from deleting the course itself. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'move_course_in_collection' or 'add_course_to_collection' beyond the obvious inverse relationship.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is clear that it is the inverse of 'add_course_to_collection', it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the course must already be in the collection) or when not to use it (e.g., if you want to delete the course itself).

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