canvas_update_syllabus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses wholesale overwrite, absence of version history, the recommended read-before-write workflow, and the non-obvious newline-to-<br> formatting behavior.

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 destructive warning is front-loaded ahead of the argument docs, and every sentence adds information. The 'Args:' block is slightly verbose but still earns its place given zero schema coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description covers the destructive semantics, prerequisites, and both parameters. The main remaining gap is the auth/permission requirement for writing to a live course page.

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, and it does: 'body' is explained as HTML with a caveat that plain newlines are not converted, and 'course_id' is documented as defaulting to CANVAS_DEFAULT_COURSE_ID. Only the accepted format/validation of course_id is left implicit.

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+resource ('Replace the course syllabus body') and immediately flags the mutation ('MUTATES the live course page'), which distinguishes it from read siblings like canvas_get_course and from the broader canvas_update_course.

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 tells the agent to read canvas_get_course first when current text matters and to show the instructor what is being replaced. Strong precondition guidance, though it doesn't contrast against any near-alternative (there is no sibling that also edits the syllabus).

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