Create course

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. Beyond those, the description adds admin-only authorization, the visibility consequence of draft vs published, and the fact that access can be gated by level. It does not say whether publishing notifies members or whether duplicate titles are rejected, which for a non-idempotent create tool would be valuable.

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?

Front-loaded and understandable, but it repeats 'Admins only' twice and restates the draft/published rule in three places, plus an opaque 'as Classroom, New course does' UI reference that adds no machine-actionable meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description doesn't say what comes back (a course id?) — a real gap since create_lesson presumably needs that id to chain. Otherwise complete for a 5-param create tool: authorization, defaults, visibility, and follow-up step are all covered.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters including defaults for published and min_level. The description adds context around the published flag (draft visibility) but no new syntax, constraints, or interaction rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a course to the group's Classroom') and immediately scopes it to draft vs published. It also signposts the adjacent tool ('Add lessons with create_lesson'), which helps separate this from lesson-level siblings. Minor redundancy ('as a draft or published' then 'as a draft unless published is true') keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives real selection guidance: use it for a draft when you don't want to ask first ('A draft is seen by admins only, so it runs without asking first'), and directs lesson creation to create_lesson. It also notes paid and time-unlocked courses are configured in Skool, i.e. not here. No explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., for editing an existing course), so not a 5.

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