create_course_location

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate names. With annotations providing minimal safety cues, the description fails to elaborate on side effects.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could be expanded slightly to improve clarity without verbosity. The structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 creation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, error states, or what happens upon successful creation. The description lacks completeness given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema covers parameter descriptions for the 'name' field and subfields of 'address_attributes', but lacks a top-level description for 'address_attributes' itself. The description adds no further parameter clarification, leaving the schema to carry the burden. Given 50% schema description coverage, the tool description does not compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 'Create a course location' clearly states the action and resource, but it is minimal and does not explain what constitutes a course location or how it differs from other location types (e.g., meeting location). Since the name itself conveys the purpose, it avoids tautology but lacks differentiation detail.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like create_meeting_location or update_course_location. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a course must already exist, or typical use cases.

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