update_courses

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

The description goes far beyond the sparse annotations by detailing per-item failure behavior, `not_found` conditions, independence of rows, duplicate-id ordering, partial-update preservation, and the OAuth scope. Thiss kind of context is exactly what an agent needs to know before invoking the tool and interpreting results.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: batch nature, id requirement, partial-update semantics, per-row eror handling, duplicate ordering, and auth scope. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose, and the rest is dense with unique operational details rather than 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?

Despite the open-ended schema, the description fully prepares an agent to invoke the tool: required id, partial-update behavior, failure modes, duplicate handling, and auth. An output schema exists, so the unchecked `failed` field is sufficient guidance for reading responses. No critical operational context appears 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only defines a `courses` array with `additionalProperties: true`. The description compensates by explaining that each item requires an `id` and the parole attributes to set, and that omitting attributes is preserved. It does not enumerate possible attribute names, but given the open-ended schema that would be impractical; the guidance provided is the critical missing piece.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update one or more existing courses.' It clearly identifies this as a batch operation, distinguishing it from create_courses and list_courses without needing to open schemas. The phrasing leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly establishes the intended context: updating existing courses in a batch, with partial-update semantics. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'existing courses' versus create/list sibling tity is strongly implied. The OAuth scope requirement also helps the agent know preconditions.

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