Update Course

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

The description adds critical behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Only provided fields are changed; omitted fields are left as-is.' This clarifies partial update semantics, which annotations (destructive, idempotent, openWorld) do not specify. No contradiction with annotations; the extra context earns a 4.

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 sentences with zero waste: one states the purpose, the other explains the partial update behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 7 parameters but a rich schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (partial update) and is sufficient. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward. Slight gap: no mention of prerequisites like course existence, but this is not critical for a simple update.

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%, with each parameter already having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured data handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Update an existing course.' It clearly distinguishes from create_course and other course-related tools by targeting existing courses. The sentence is unambiguous about the operation.

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 usage for modifying an existing course through the word 'existing,' differentiating it from create_course. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear contextual direction.

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