share_lesson_sync_start

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to explain the safety profile. The description adds the key behavior that this is an asynchronous background task and that nothing runs unless confirm=true; the schema default is false. These are real additions that shape how the agent calls the tool. It does not say what the destructive sync does to existing data, which is a remaining gap.

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?

Three short clauses carry the action, the follow-up, and the confirm gate, with nothing wasted. The ordering is front-loaded correctly, starting with what the tool does before moving to caveats. The telegraphic style, with clauses separated by semicolons and periods, is slightly cryptic, but the content is effective.

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 the annotations carry the destructive and open-world warnings. However, the required redirect_uri is undocumented, and the description never says what the sync does to existing lesson data even though destructiveHint=true. For a destructive, async, auth-based operation, that leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only 33%: only confirm has a schema description, and code and redirect_uri are bare strings. The description identifies the code as a lesson sync authorization code and explains confirm, but redirect_uri is required and unexplained in both places. It therefore covers two of three parameters and leaves one important gap.

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 uses a specific verb and object: create a background task using a lesson sync authorization code (用课程同步授权码创建后台任务). That is clearer than a restatement of the name. It also names share_lesson_sync_status, so an agent can distinguish this tool from the sibling that handles polling rather than creation.

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 two-step sequence is explicit: first call this tool, then poll share_lesson_sync_status. The clause 'confirm=true 执行' tells the agent that the tool executes only when confirm is set to true. It gives working context but no explicit exclusion or prerequisite conditions beyond having a code.

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