enroll_userEnroll a user in a Canvas course by specifying course ID, user ID, and enrollment type like Teacher or Student.
Enroll a user in a course with a specified role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | The enrollment type | |
| user_id | Yes | The Canvas user ID to enroll | |
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| enrollment_state | No | Initial enrollment state (defaults to invited) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations include destructiveHint=true, which signals mutation, but the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond that. It doesn't mention that enrollment may send invitations, that changing enrollment_state affects user access, that re-enrolling an existing user may update their enrollment, or that this operation may be irreversible. With destructiveHint=true, the description carries a burden to explain consequences, and it fails to do so.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameter. It earns its place with no filler, though it could add a brief note about enrollment_state behavior without becoming verbose.
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 mutation tool with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what happens after enrollment (e.g., invitation workflow, default state), what the response contains, or any side effects. An agent would need to infer too much about the operation's consequences.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the phrase 'with a specified role', which maps to the 'type' parameter, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('Enroll'), a resource ('a user in a course'), and a key parameter ('with a specified role'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_enrollments and remove_enrollment, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 the primary use case: adding a user to a course with a role. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_course_enrollments or remove_enrollment, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the user must exist, the course must be active). The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.