aeroedu_course_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context: it creates in draft status and returns courseId. This goes beyond annotations by specifying the initial state and intended use. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or authorization requirements.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, state, and return value. The second lists subjects. No wasted words.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value and integration with aeroedu_chapter_add. It covers the draft state. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the course is initially empty or the need for authentication.

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?

All 6 parameters have full schema description coverage (100%), so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds minimal extra parameter info; it only lists subjects which are already in the enum. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Tạo' (Create) and the resource 'khoá học mới trên AeroEdu' with the specific state 'draft'. It distinguishes from siblings like aeroedu_course_list (list) and aeroedu_chapter_add (add chapter) by noting the return of courseId for subsequent use.

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 implies a workflow by stating 'Trả về courseId để dùng cho aeroedu_chapter_add', but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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