publish_course

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and publication modes but does not explain what publishing actually changes, whether it makes the course publicly visible, whether it is reversible, or whether it has side effects on existing published versions. This is minimal behavioral context for a state-changing tool.

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 a single concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing. However, the brevity trades off necessary semantic detail, so it is concise but not fully effective.

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?

This is a state-changing operation with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a one-line purpose. It leaves critical invocation details undefined, including how to choose between self-published, organization, and university modes, and what the required slug refers to. An agent could identify the tool but not reliably call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at two of the six parameters through 'organization' and 'university'. The required 'slug', along with emailReaders, releaseNotes, and percentComplete, are completely unexplained in both schema and description. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to fill the parameters correctly.

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 and resource: 'Publish a course', and adds scope by naming three publication modes (self-published, organization, university). It is distinguishable from create_course and preview_course by the publish action, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_course, preview_course, publish_book, or unpublish_book. No workflow prerequisites are mentioned, such as whether the course must already exist or be in draft state, and no exclusions are provided. The only implied usage is the action itself.

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