save_course_curriculum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write operation: 'Writes to knowledge/courses/{slug}/course.json and advances to Step 5.' This explains the side effects and state progression, which is sufficient for a save 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (saving curriculum as JSON), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, when to call, parameters, and side effects. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required. It is complete for an agent to 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 explains that curriculum_json is a JSON object with modules and lessons arrays, adding meaning beyond the schema (which only defines it as a string). It also describes slug as the course slug. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Step 4 — Save the approved curriculum design for a course.' It specifies it should be called after the Learning Architect produces the curriculum, distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_course_outline or save_lesson_draft by its role in a workflow step.

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 clear context on when to use: 'Call this after the Learning Architect has produced the curriculum.' It also mentions the side effect of writing to a file and advancing to Step 5. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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