update_course

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: idempotency is explicitly stated, auth injection is clarified as server-side, rate limiting and retry behavior are disclosed, and error mapping for 401/403/404/422 is fully documented. This is far beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 longer than minimal but well organized with labeled sections for Behavior, Parameters, Returns, and Use when. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and HTTP method, and the length is justified by the behavioral and error-handling details.

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 write operation with no output schema, this description covers everything needed: the request semantics, response format, error behavior, authentication model, rate limiting, idempotency, and when to choose this vs. the create tool. There is no obvious missing context that would cause an agent to misinvoke it.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds real value by clarifying that the entire JSON payload goes into the single body argument and is forwarded verbatim, and by warning that although the spec marks body optional, this endpoint expects one.

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: 'Updates the course specified by the provided course id.' The description clearly identifies this as a write/update operation and differentiates it from the create tool by saying 'use the create tool if it does not exist yet.'

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when: only when the user asked to change an existing record' and instructs the agent to read the record first to avoid overwriting unintended fields. It also names the create tool as the alternative when the course does not exist, which is direct and practical guidance.

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