Update course details

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the update is partial ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and requires specific permissions ('Requires edit rights'). This is valuable because annotations only indicate idempotent and non-destructive, not the partial-update semantics. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded about what it updates. The second sentence clarifies the partial-update behavior, and the third states the permission requirement. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is straightforward with four well-documented parameters and an output schema. The description covers the update scope, partial-update behavior, and permission requirement. It does not elaborate on error cases, but given the output schema exists and the simplicity, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description enriches this by clarifying that omitted optional parameters retain their original values, which is not evident from the schema alone. This adds meaningful semantic detail for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'course', listing the specific fields affected (title, description, tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on these fields, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for clarity.

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 when to use this tool (when updating course title/description/tags) and states a prerequisite ('Requires edit rights'). However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternatives for related operations like visibility changes, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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