set_student_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a useful behavioral note that it does not accept authentication information, but omits critical write semantics such as whether it merges with or replaces an existing profile.

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, front-loaded sentences with the action stated first and the constraint second; no filler. Slightly terse given the gaps it leaves, but efficient.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a mutation tool with four 0%-documented parameters, the description should clarify merge/replace behavior and field formats, which it does not.

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 carries the burden, and it does name all four fields (college/major/grade/interests) mapping to the four parameters. However, it gives no format or type guidance (e.g., entry_year format) and does not mention that all fields are optional with empty-string defaults.

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 (保存/save) and resource (学院/专业/年级/兴趣 = college/major/grade/interests), and gives the downstream purpose (helping the agent filter opportunities). The purpose is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling 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?

Usage is only implied via '帮助用户的 agent 筛选机会' (helps the user's agent filter opportunities) and the constraint '不接收认证信息'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, but the intent is inferable.

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