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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it states scalar fields patch while null clears nullable ones, lists are replaced whole, an invalid value rejects the call and leaves the course unchanged (atomicity), saves land in the change log, and no emails or webhooks fire. It also warns that certificateConfig replaces the stored object so omitted keys are deleted, which is exactly the kind of destructive nuance an agent needs.

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 purpose, then semantics, then constraints, with zero filler sentences; each clause carries distinct information. It is a single dense run-on paragraph, though, which makes the individual rules harder to scan than a short bulleted structure would.

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 31-parameter, deeply nested mutation tool this covers the essentials: patch semantics, replacement semantics, atomic failure behavior, side effects, change-log behavior, and the return shape ('same shape as course_get'). With no output schema, it still tells the agent what comes back and what the shared mutable prerequisites are.

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 31 parameters are already documented and this is the baseline-3 case. The description restates the patch-vs-replace rule and the accessDurationDays-to-new-enrollments caveat, but those points are also present in the schema, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (update a course's settings) and enumerates the field families covered, from catalog text and pricing to instructors, prerequisites, application form and certificateConfig. It also carves out what this tool is NOT (lessons belong to course_content_set), so an agent can separate it from siblings like course_content_set and enrollment_update.

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 routes two adjacent tasks to the correct siblings ('replace them with course_content_set', 'change existing learners' expiry with enrollment_update') and points to course_get with includeConfig:true as the way to read current list values before replacing them. There is no explicit statement of when this tool should be chosen over course_create, but the update/create distinction is self-evident.

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