ghl_course_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the required token type and OAuth scope (courses.write) and the underlying endpoint/version. It stops short of disclosing blast radius — whether deleting a course also removes its lessons, quizzes and enrollments — which is the key behavioral unknown for a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action, followed by prerequisites and endpoint metadata. There is minor redundancy: the courses.write scope is stated twice (inline requirement and 'OAuth scopes' line), and the opening '{productId} path parameter' note is duplicated by the endpoint line.

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?

No output schema exists, but the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents both parameters. Auth requirements, endpoint, and version header are all present, so an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly; only cascade/return semantics remain unstated, which is a minor gap for a delete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds one genuinely useful clarification — that productId refers to a course (product) — but says nothing new about locationId beyond what the schema's own description 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a course') and additionally disambiguates the resource by stating that {productId} is the course (product) id, which distinguishes it from the many other ghl_course_delete_* siblings (lesson, quiz, offer, enrollment). An agent can identify exactly what this tool removes without opening the schema.

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?

It states the prerequisite (a Sub-Account/location token with courses.write) and the endpoint, which tells the agent when the call is legal. However, it never contrasts this with sibling delete tools or warns when not to use it (e.g. cascading removal of lessons/enrollments). Usage context is implied by the auth requirement rather than explicitly reasoned.

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