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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (content versions, enrollments, progress, certificates, discussions, payment records and their effect on revenue reports, applications, learning-path steps, group links), states irreversibility, and describes the detach-vs-delete branch. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the detach/delete distinction comes first, then destruction list, then the refusal+force condition, then the alternative and the pre-check. Every clause carries actionable information and nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value ('whether the course was deleted or detached'). Combined with the destruction list, force semantics, and the alternative route, nothing needed to call this safely 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it frames force as the override for the enrolled-learners refusal and implies id identifies the course. It stops short of documenting types/defaults beyond what the schema already carries.

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+resource (delete a course) and immediately distinguishes the two possible semantics — detach from this site vs. permanent deletion. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like course_update or enrollment_revoke without opening any 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?

Explicitly names alternatives and conditions: use course_update with isVisibleInCatalog:false to hide instead of delete, and use enrollment_list(courseId) before forcing. It also states the exact precondition (enrolled non-waitlisted learners) under which the call is refused.

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