attach_course_resource

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

The description goes beyond annotations by warning 'Changes stored DeepTutor learning data' and requiring explicit learner request. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation claim is consistent. It adds a caution about verification that is not present in structured fields.

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, with the critical warning front-loaded. It consists of one sentence plus a warning prefix, conveying purpose and condition efficiently. No redundant filler, though the warning is slightly verbose but justified.

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 (5 params, 4 required, output schema present, 100% coverage), the description covers the action, the condition for use, and a verification caution. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists to handle that. The essential knowledge for a correct call is present.

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 all parameters are documented. The description adds a general warning to check values, but does not introduce specific parameter semantics beyond the schema. It hints that ref_id is an existing resource, but the schema already states that. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'attach' and the resource ('existing book, knowledge base, notebook or other supported resource') to a course. It is distinct from siblings like replace_course_syllabus or list_course_resource_candidates, though it does not explicitly name a sibling. The action is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'call only when the learner explicitly requests this action.' It also instructs to check the target ID and values, which serves as a safety check before invoking. It does not mention alternatives, but the condition for use is clear and relevant.

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