Add course editor

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the caller must have edit rights and that access is granted based on email. It avoids contradicting the annotations and supplements them with an auth precondition.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and important prerequisite are front-loaded, and every clause 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 simple 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructive behavior, the description supplies the essential missing context: the permission prerequisite and the email-based targeting. Nothing critical is left unexplained for correct invocation.

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 baseline applies. The description reinforces the meaning of 'email' by saying access is granted by email address and aligns with the role examples ('edit or view'), but it does not add substantial new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('grant'), resource ('access to a course'), and method ('by email address'). It also clarifies that both edit and view access can be granted, distinguishing this add operation from siblings like remove_course_editor and get_course_editors.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: to grant edit or view access by email. It also provides a key prerequisite ('Requires edit rights on that course'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over related course-access tools.

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