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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), a moderation gate ('Udemy may review changes to a published course before they show'), the default per-call confirmation and that it can be switched off, plus the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). This is exactly the behavioral disclosure that annotations alone do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Change the title, subtitle or description shown on the public course page. Changes the title, subtitle or description of the public course page.'). That redundancy does not earn its place and bloats an otherwise short definition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: scope, partial updates, moderation delay, confirmation behavior, and auth. Reversibility of the change is not stated, but otherwise an agent has enough to call it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented (fields lists title/subtitle/description_markdown, course_id points to list_courses). The description's 'only the fields you pass change' adds useful partial-update meaning, but the schema already does most of the work, so 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?

States a specific verb (Change/Update) and resource (title, subtitle, description on the public course page) precisely. This distinguishes it from siblings like udemy_reply_to_question, udemy_respond_to_review, and udemy_send_announcement, which touch different aspects of a course. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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 clear operating context: confirm with the user before each call because it 'reaches other people', and notes the confirmation toggle. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, but no alternative update-course tool exists among the siblings, so the gap is minor.

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