duplicate_course

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by revealing that cloning uses backup+restore internally and that the new course is hidden by default. However, it does not mention permissions, whether the source course is affected, or if the operation is asynchronous, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 three concise sentences that immediately state the main purpose, then provide meaningful default behavior details. There is no redundant or filler content, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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 moderately complex with a nested options object and seven parameters, but the description only covers core behavior and defaults. It omits how to customize options (e.g., including users), expected return values, and any prerequisites. With no output schema or annotations, this is a notable gap, though the schema and defaults partially compensate.

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 description does not address any parameters directly, and the schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description fails to compensate for the lack of explanation. Although the schema itself has rich property descriptions, the tool description adds no parameter semantics, which is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 starts with 'Clone a course into a new one' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_course or duplicate_section. It also adds context about implementation (backup+restore) and default behavior, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides useful context about what is copied by default (activities/blocks/filters) and what is not (users/enrolments/grades), helping the agent understand the tool's typical use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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