Set Course Nickname

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important context beyond annotations: the nickname is personal ('Only you see it') and does not alter the course for others. It does not discuss idempotency, which annotations flag as false, but this is a minor omission for a low-risk personalization tool.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by visibility clarification and undo guidance.

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 simple two-parameter personalization tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.

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%, so both course_id and nickname are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Give') and resource ('a course a personal nickname') plus the effect ('replaces its name in your own Canvas view'). The scope is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_course_nickname and list_course_nicknames.

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?

Explicitly names the undo path: 'Undo with remove_course_nickname.' This routes the agent to the correct sibling for reversal and implies when to use this tool versus the removal tool.

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