replace_course_syllabus

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

The warning explicitly states this tool 'Changes stored DeepTutor learning data,' reinforcing the destructiveHint annotation with operational context. It adds meaningful safety guidance: check the target ID and values, require explicit learner authorization, and review before replacing. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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?

Two sentences carry the essential warning and the core action with no filler. The safety warning is front-loaded, and the action statement is placed after the caution, giving the agent the critical context first.

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 destructive replace operation, the description covers the key context: it mutates stored data, requires explicit user authorization, and warns to verify target and values. Combined with the complete input schema and output schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it safely and correctly.

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% and the schema already documents course_id, units, and confirm clearly. The description's warning to 'Check the target ID and values' broadly maps to parameters but adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema 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 names the specific verb and resource: 'Replace a course's full syllabus', making the operation clear. It also clarifies scope with 'full syllabus', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_course_unit_covered that operate on individual units.

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 an explicit condition for use: 'call only when the learner explicitly requests this action', and frames the action as requiring review. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the learner-request constraint, so it misses the top score for alternative routing.

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