course_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only states that a folder is created. It omits what happens if the directory exists, whether it's destructive/reversible, what files are scaffolded, and any permission requirements — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter value hints following. No wasted words, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than maximal helpfulness.

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 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the required course_dir/title, the effect of the operation, and the relationship to course_build. It provides only the purpose and two value hints, leaving the workflow context incomplete.

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 0% (no descriptions, no enums), yet the description usefully specifies the allowed values for code_lang (csharp|python) and voice (F1~F5, M1~M5), which the schema lacks as enums. However, title, subtitle, and course_dir remain undocumented, so it only partially compensates.

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 clear verb+resource: '새 코스 폴더를 만듭니다' (creates a new course folder). An agent can understand the action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like course_build or authoring_guide that also relate to course setup.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus course_build, authoring_guide, or lesson_save. Prerequisites like whether the course directory must already exist, or the recommended workflow order, are absent.

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