confirm_course_registration

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds that it verifies API membership and that official registration is separate, which provides context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or failure modes, so the added behavioral detail is moderate.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the main action. The note about official registration is useful but could be seen as extra. No fluff; it earns its place.

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 confirmation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and usage condition, but lacks details on the token source (preview step), error handling, or what 'verify API membership' entails. Given the complexity of a two-step registration, more completeness would be expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the confirmationToken or the confirmed flag beyond implying 'explicitly approves' which maps to confirmed=true. The schema already constrains confirmed to true, so the description adds minimal value for parameters. The token's origin and format are not addressed.

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 states a specific verb ('Enrol') and resource ('exact course from an unexpired preview'), and clarifies the verification step. It clearly differentiates this from the official TU Delft registration and implies it is the confirm step after a preview. Siblings include prepare_course_registration, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 instructs to call only after the student explicitly approves, which is a clear usage condition. It also distinguishes from official registration, but does not explicitly mention the prerequisite prepare_course_registration step. Still, the guidance is sufficient to know when it applies.

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