jcourse_create_review

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: remote writes are gated behind explicit user authorization and a confirm=true flag, which is exactly the kind of gate an agent must know before invoking. It does not describe failure behavior or what happens if confirm is omitted beyond the default.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then the authorization prerequisite. Nothing is padded and every clause carries operational weight.

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?

The tool has a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, so return values and argument formats need not be explained. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the mandatory human-authorization step before this non-idempotent remote write.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including confirm and content constraints, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the confirm gate and lists the fields to surface to the user before writing, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ("发布课程评价" — publish a course review), which is unambiguous against the read-side siblings like jcourse_list_course_reviews or jcourse_get_review. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from jcourse_update_review or jcourse_delete_review, so the new-vs-modify boundary is left to inference.

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 gives an explicit pre-call workflow: show the user the final body, rating, semester, and score, obtain authorization, then send confirm=true. That is concrete when-to-use context. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over update_review, and gives no exclusion cases.

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