Metis · Course Builder — Publish Course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes key side effects: setting row to active, resetting progress, and writing a note. However, it does not mention permissions needed, reversibility, or error conditions. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 brief, front-loaded with purpose, followed by implementation details, then parameter and return info. Every sentence is meaningful with no waste.

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 simple parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It provides context about being after 7 steps. Missing details about what '7 steps' are or prerequisites, but still complete enough for an experienced user.

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%, so the description compensates by listing the parameter and its purpose: 'slug: The course slug to publish.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 uses specific verb 'Finalise and publish' and identifies the resource as 'completed course build'. It clearly states the actions performed: marks as active, sets progress to 0, writes completion note. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_course_status' or 'review_course'.

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 explicitly states 'Call after all 7 steps are done', providing clear guidance on when to use. It also implies the course must be completed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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