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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: learners see changes immediately, every call creates a version, earlier versions remain readable for rollback, and block ids are essential for preserving learner history. It also discloses the return value (new version number and block count) despite no output schema, which is unusually thorough.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action and then covering usage, format, ids, and versioning in a logical order. Every sentence carries actionable information, with no 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?

Given the complexity of a destructive replace operation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, alternatives, format requirements, id handling, rollback path, and return values. It is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantics of `blocks` versus `markdown` (EditorJS vs prose only, markdown cannot express graded blocks), the heading conventions (H2 for sections, H3 for units), the importance of block ids, and that blocks wins over markdown if both are sent. This meaningfully enriches the schema's own descriptions.

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 and scope: 'Replace a course's lessons by saving a complete new content version.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming course_update for settings and course_content_get for reading earlier versions, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and doesn't do.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by contrasting this tool with course_update ('settings such as price or visibility are changed with course_update instead') and clarifies that it is not a patch ('send the whole course every time'). It also points to course_content_get for rollback, naming alternatives directly.

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