canvas_update_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 but only states the basic action ('Update'). It doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (no output schema). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 21 parameters.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 complex mutation tool with 21 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, parameter insights, and response information. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for the missing operational and contextual details needed for effective tool use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify semantics like partial updates. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't enhance understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing course in Canvas'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'canvas_update_assignment' or 'canvas_update_user_profile' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a course ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'canvas_create_course' or 'canvas_get_course' in the sibling list.

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