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

The annotations are mostly false hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: draft visibility, publication dependency, unlimited drafts, access-mode semantics, author identity as key owner, and idempotent replays with the same Idempotency-Key. The conditional idempotency does not contradict idempotentHint=false because it only applies when the client supplies that key.

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?

Four dense sentences, each adding a distinct fact: draft status, publishing step, tariff policy, access modes, ownership, and idempotency. The most important behavior is front-loaded, and nothing repeats what the schema or annotations already provide.

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 creation tool with an output schema and one required parameter, the description covers lifecycle, visibility, access-mode semantics, ownership, and retry behavior. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only non-obvious parameter, access_mode, with all three enum values and their meanings. The title and description parameters are self-explanatory from their names and schema constraints, so their omission is acceptable.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: it creates a course draft, not a published course, and clearly states that the course is invisible to students until published via `publish_course`. This distinguishes it from publish_course and from the sibling create_lesson/create_module/create_test tools. The access-mode details reinforce the tool's scope.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: use this tool to create a draft, then publish it with `publish_course`, and drafts are unlimited on any plan. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus sibling create_* tools, but the resource type makes the main decision obvious.

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