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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description explains that publication is subject to the tariff limit, only published courses count toward the limit, hitting the limit returns a 409 with guidance, and unpublishing is always available. This gives the agent actionable behavioral detail and does not contradict the annotations.

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 three tight sentences: primary behavior first, then business rule, then error/unpublish clarification. Each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the tariff restriction, the error case, and the unpublish behavior. It does not describe the success response format, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema, but overall it is substantially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of the published flag through the two states (open to students vs draft) and mentions the tariff check, but it never explicitly maps course_id or published to the schema fields, leaving some inference required.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Открывает курс ученикам или возвращает в черновики', clearly indicating the tool toggles publication status on a course. This differentiates it from siblings like create_course or update_lesson, which handle creation and lesson edits respectively.

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 context for when to use the tool: publishing is the same as the dashboard button, runs through the tariff limit, and unpublishing is always possible. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers the same publish/unpublish capability, so the guidance is sufficient.

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