Publish course

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false... here destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added value is the reassurance that members' progress is kept and that the operation is reversible by flipping the switch back. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations and correctly softens the destructive flag, though it doesn't state whether members are notified on publish.

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 core intent is front-loaded, but the text is padded: 'Admins only' appears twice, and 'Publishing shows the course to members' restates the opening sentence and the 'as the course's Published switch does' analogy. Roughly a third of the words could be cut without loss.

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 3-parameter toggle with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers authorization, visibility effects, and data preservation. Only member notification behavior on publish/unpublish is unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description's mapping of the boolean to publish/unpublish merely restates the schema's own wording ('true publishes, false turns it back into a draft'). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus its dual direction: publish a draft course or revert it to a draft. No sibling tool overlaps (create_course, update_lesson, etc. handle different resources), so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 admin-only prerequisite is stated (twice), which is real usage guidance, and the draft/publish condition is implied. However, it never contrasts with alternatives such as create_course's initial publish state or says when unpublishing is appropriate rather than deleting a course.

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