canvas_star

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that this is a write operation and that the result is the course being pinned at the top of the course panel, which is real value. It stops short of stating whether starring an already-starred course is idempotent, whether the change is reversible (via canvas_unstar), or that the call is a no-op precheck unless confirm is set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, effect, and write nature packed into one clause and a parenthetical; nothing is wasted. The nested parenthetical makes it dense but not ambiguous.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is adequate: the mutation is disclosed and its visible effect described. It is incomplete in omitting its relationship to the sibling canvas_unstar and the precheck/confirm interaction that governs whether anything actually changes.

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 100%, so both parameters (course id/keyword and the confirm precheck flag) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the general object of the action ('课程') and no extra semantics such as what happens when course matches multiple names.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair (将课程加入收藏/星标) and adds a concrete effect, '置顶于课程面板', plus flags it as a 写操作. It is distinguishable from the sibling canvas_unstar by the '加入/星标' direction, though it never explicitly references that inverse tool.

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 use case is implied — star a course to pin it on the panel — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no pointer to canvas_unstar for removing a star, and no discussion of when to set confirm=true versus leaving the default precheck behavior.

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