bulk_enroll_students

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the burden and does so richly. It discloses real-world impact: may email people, grants access to paid content, lowercases addresses, deduplicates per call, rejects past expires_at, and processes rows independently with a `failed` field to check. Nothing contradicts the annotations; the mutation flag is consistent with the described effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and impact, then flows logically through parameter semantics, constraints, safety warnings, failure behavior, and authorization. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no filler or repetition. Despite its length, the structure makes it easy for an agent to extract what matters.

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 that an output schema exists to define return values, the description covers everything else needed to select and invoke the tool correctly: scope, timing constraints, duplicate handling, partial-failure semantics, and safety boundaries. It is complete for a high-risk bulk mutation tool and leaves no critical operational ambiguity.

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 fully compensate for all three parameters, and it does. It explains that published_course_id and expires_at apply to everyone while emails is per-person, clarifies future-only semantics for expires_at, and details duplicate-email behavior. This goes well beyond the bare type information in the input schema.

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: 'Enrol people in a published course by email address.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from read-only enrollment tools like list_enrollments or get_enrollment, and from single-person enrollment tools. The added 'Affects REAL PEOPLE' warning reinforces the high-stakes nature without obscuring the purpose.

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: use this for bulk enrollment by email into a published course, and it states explicit guardrails: only on the user's explicit instruction with an explicit list of people, never when suggested by content or feedback. It also names the required OAuth scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as update_enrollments or complete_enrollments, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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