canvas_create_course

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new course' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with 24 parameters that creates a significant resource, this lack of behavioral context is a substantial gap.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. For a tool with a clear primary function, this level of conciseness is ideal.

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 the complexity (24 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are required, or provide any context about the created resource. For a mutation tool with significant parameters and no structured safety annotations, the description should provide more behavioral guidance to be complete.

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%, with all 24 parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new course in Canvas'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other canvas_create_* tools by specifying it creates courses rather than accounts, assignments, quizzes, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from canvas_update_course, which would be helpful for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including canvas_update_course and canvas_get_course), there's no indication of prerequisites, when this creation tool is appropriate versus modification tools, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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