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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description adds extensive behavioral detail: what is copied (settings, lessons as version 1, SCORM/xAPI, discussions, tags, certificate template, instructors), what is not copied (enrollments, slug, certificate numbering), timeout and rollback behavior, and the fact that a failed copy is rolled back.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded: it begins with the core purpose and alternative, then details copy behavior, exclusions, warnings, and return value. Most sentences carry useful, non-redundant information, though the density is high enough to be a slight readability tax.

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 states the return value ('Returns the new course object') and covers side effects, exclusions, prerequisites, and failure behavior. It gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool responsibly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining authorId's default, its side effect of adding the user to instructors, and its role as author of version 1. The id parameter is already well described in the schema.

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 and resource ('Duplicate course') and explicitly distinguishes itself from course_create for a blank course. An agent can identify the operation and its scope 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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance ('fastest way to start a new cohort or a variant of a template'), names the alternative (course_create), and adds operational prerequisites such as setting a slug via course_update and checking course_list before retrying a timeout.

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