blackboard_export_multi_course_agenda

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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds real context beyond them: it writes an ICS file to downloads/exports and explicitly does not sync calendars, which preempts a common misuse. It stops short of saying whether existing files are overwritten.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the export action and followed by the two constraints. No padding, though the phrase is dense and slightly telegraphic.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the key behavioral questions (side effect location, no sync, partial flag) but leaves the required date-range parameters and outputDir fallback unexplained.

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 must carry the load. It conveys the course-count bound (1-10), the destination directory (downloads/exports, implying outputDir), and the meaning of allowPartial, but says nothing about the since/until semantics or the required '_N_M' course ID shape already encoded in the schema pattern.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: exporting an ICS copy of dates for 1-10 courses, with per-section identifiers. That is enough to separate it from the single-course blackboard_export_course_agenda, though it never names siblings explicitly.

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?

'No sincroniza calendarios' rules out a plausible alternative interpretation (calendar sync), and 'parcial solo con allowPartial' gives the condition for partial output. It doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over export_course_agenda for one course, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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