create_teach_target

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the return format ({ok, id}), explains grade_year derivation logic, and mentions server-side normalization of subject/edition. However, it omits error conditions, idempotency, and authentication requirements, which are important but not covered.

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 description is long and detailed, mixing Chinese and English, which may reduce clarity. While it is front-loaded with purpose, the level of detail could be streamlined. The bullet points help structure, but some redundancy exists.

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?

Given 9 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description covers most aspects: all parameters explained, behavior documented, and nested object defined. Missing elements include potential errors, side effects, and confirmation of output schema details, but overall adequate.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, valid values (e.g., grade_no range, textbook_edition codes), and for profile, providing the complete JSON structure. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a teaching target (student or class) with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('teach_target'). It distinguishes from siblings like update_teach_target and archive_target by focusing on 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 description implies usage for creating targets that will be referenced later in scheduling and lesson planning, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or archive). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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