reupload_course

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mechanism (uses cached JSON spec, recreates course on specified connection) but omits details like whether it overwrites existing courses, required permissions, or error handling. It adds some value but lacks full transparency.

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: three short sentences plus parameter descriptions. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence. No redundant information.

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 two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meanings, and usage. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a cached course must exist) but sibling tools imply that. Lacks explanation of return value, but output schema covers that. Reasonably complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides meanings for both parameters: course_id as 'cache ID' and connection_name as 'target connection; empty means active'. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 're-upload' and resource 'cached course', and explains it recreates the course from stored JSON spec. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_course (which creates new courses) and list_cached_courses (listing only).

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 explicitly says 'Useful for migrating courses between Frappe instances', giving a clear use case. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but this context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool over siblings.

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