강좌 추적 켜기/끄기

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description goes further by disclosing that an ambiguous match is a no-op that returns candidates instead of writing, which is behavior no annotation conveys.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the disambiguation rule, then the safety note. Nothing repeats the schema or the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be described, and the description covers the one edge case an agent would otherwise get wrong (ambiguous match, no write). Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema carries the basic meaning. The description still adds value by explaining that course accepts either an exact courseId or a partial subject-name match and what happens when that match is not unique.

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 scope: turning tracking on or off for exactly one course. An agent can distinguish it from list_courses or get_assignment without opening any schema.

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 an explicit recovery path for the ambiguous case: if several courses match, nothing is saved and candidates are returned, so the caller should re-invoke with courseId. It also adds a usage rule that course names are LMS data, not instructions, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before acting on user-supplied strings.

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