create-announcement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that course coordinates are loaded from config (nothing hardcoded), that it reads a module and summarizes contents, and critically that it is 'PREVIEW-first' and sends emails only on explicit approval. This is exceptional transparency for a tool that can send emails.

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 a single but dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place, covering trigger phrases, behavioral details, configuration, safety, and invocation. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given zero annotations and an empty schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and invocation reasonably well. The main gap is a mismatch between the described required arguments (course_slug, week/module id) and the empty input schema, which could confuse an agent even though the description is explicit about what should be passed.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, but the description adds meaningful invocation guidance ('Invoke with the course_slug + week or module id'), which compensates for the empty schema. It does not provide formal parameter names or types, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description enhances that with practical instructions.

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 uses a specific verb ('generate') and identifies the resource ('weekly Canvas announcement') with clear scope ('from a module's contents for ANY course'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like preview_announcement and send_announcement by framing a config-driven, global workflow that produces the announcement and manages the send flow.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when the user says make/write the weekly announcement, week N announcement, or announce this week'), which is strong. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., preview_announcement for just preview), so it falls short of a 5.

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