copy_course_contents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: dry-run defaults to true and applying requires separately configured Drive credentials. However, for a mutation tool it is silent on partial-failure semantics, reversibility, and the student-free destination precondition, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what gets copied and followed by the operational caveats. The resource list is long but each item is informative, and there is no filler.

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 multi-resource mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the dry-run default and credential requirement but omits the destination-course precondition and any indication of what a successful run returns or how failures are handled.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the dryRun default and the pastDueDatePolicy enum. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Copy) and enumerates the resources being copied (topics, coursework, class materials, announcements, rubrics, Drive attachments) plus the between-courses scope. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are list/get/read operations.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by the verb and by the absence of any copying sibling, but the description never states when to use this versus alternatives or any explicit when-not condition. It also omits the prerequisite that the destination course must have no students, which the schema carries instead.

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