create_courses

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

The description reveals important behaviors beyond the annotations: partial failures are normal, the failed field must be checked, ids are returned in creation order, new courses have no lessons and are unpublished/invisible, extra attributes are rejected rather than silently dropped, and OAuth scope courses:write is required. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation signals.

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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then batch/input shape, then failure semantics, then postconditions, then OAuth scope. Every sentence adds actionable information and there is no filler 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?

For a tool with a thin input schema and rich batch semantics, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to structure input, how to interpret partial failure, what the output fields mean, what state the new course is in, and what authorization is required. With an output schema present, no return-value detail is missing.

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% and the schema itself is extremely thin (courses array with additionalProperties true). The description compensates fully by specifying the required title field with length constraints, listing all optional fields, and explaining the rejection behavior for unknown attributes.

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: 'Create one or more courses' and immediately identifies the key distinguishing behavior—this is a BATCH operation. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_courses, get_course, and update_courses without needing to inspect the schema.

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: pass a list even for a single course, process rows independently, check failed before reporting success, and require the courses:write scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the batch semantics and scope requirement provide strong practical guidance.

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