Remove Favorite Course

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 agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the change is scoped to "your own view" and "your enrollment is unchanged," which reassures against the most likely misinterpretation of a destructive-sounding verb. It does not address repeat-call behavior, which matters slightly given idempotentHint=false, but nothing is contradicted.

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, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it does not affect, and how to undo it. The effect statement is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter toggle with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing. The scope clarification and the named inverse cover the remaining ambiguity.

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 100% and the single parameter's schema description already explains the format ("12345") and where to obtain it (list_courses). The description adds nothing further about course_id, so this sits at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 and resource ("Unstar a favorite course") plus the visible effect ("no longer shows on your Canvas dashboard"), which is more precise than the title alone. It also names the sibling tool that performs the inverse, so an agent can distinguish remove_favorite_course from add_favorite_course without opening either 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 the condition that selects this tool (you want the course off your dashboard) and explicitly points to add_favorite_course as the reverse operation. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. that this is not the same as dropping a course), but the context is clear.

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