Update a course section

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful context beyond them by stating that the call changes community state and is gated behind confirm=true; it still says nothing about what is destroyed or overwritten by an update.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the confirmation constraint is stated up front after the purpose. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps the description could have filled.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with six parameters, a nested payload object and no output schema, the description is thin: it never mentions which fields are updatable (name) or how payload/payload_file/body-flag modes interact. Annotations cover the safety side, but the description leaves an agent needing to infer the rest from the 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already explains account, confirm, payload, payload_file and section_id. The description only reinforces the confirm semantics, adding little syntax or format detail about the nested payload or the payload/payload_file exclusivity beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Update a course section'), so an agent can immediately tell it is a mutation on an existing section rather than a create/delete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like update_course_lesson or update_course_progress, which share the same naming shape.

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 phrase 'requires confirm=true for the user-requested action' implies the tool should only be invoked when the user explicitly asked for this change, which is mild usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisite list, and no routing to create/delete/get section alternatives.

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