create_course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: contract validation (must be active and same pair, else rejected), auto-merge into covered_course_ids, and the exact impact of planned_lesson_count on completion determination, including the permanent 'no later entry' consequence when null. This is rich and non-obvious.

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?

Although a single dense paragraph, every sentence adds essential context: purpose, contract linking, validation, and completion logic. It is front-loaded with the primary action and structured logically. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all key operational aspects: when to use, side effects, validation rules, and follow-up consequences. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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 schema has moderate coverage (57%). The description adds significant meaning to contract_id (validation, auto-merge) and planned_lesson_count (completion threshold, null behavior). Other parameters like topic, description, and generated_from are not elaborated but are self-explanatory or covered by schema descriptions. The added semantics compensate for the gaps.

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 clearly states '新建一个 course' (create a new course) with added specificity about zero-material topics and no need to attach to an existing course. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_contract_coverage by describing the auto-merge behavior and from add_lesson by focusing on course creation.

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 states when to use: '零材料启动新主题时' (when starting a new topic with zero materials). It also names an alternative: '等价紧接着调一次 update_contract_coverage' (equivalent to calling update_contract_coverage), making the choice clear.

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