schedule_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses relevant behaviors: return object with ok/created/conflicts, conflict handling logic with force, auto_bind functionality, and the endpoint. It does not mention authentication or permissions, but covers main behavioral aspects well.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by key behavioral notes and a bulleted parameter list. However, it includes some unnecessary details (e.g., ':9090' endpoint, '🔴 冲突处理（契约 D6）') that may distract. Overall, it is fairly efficient for the complexity involved.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description covers inputs, behavioral nuances, and output format thoroughly. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., target must exist) but is otherwise complete for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain all parameters. It does so exhaustively: target_type with enum values, target_id, items with nested fields (date, start, end, plan_lesson_id, session_type, external_title, note), plan_id, auto_bind, and force. Each parameter is clearly defined, adding significant value beyond the 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 it performs batch scheduling for a target (student or class), with a specific verb ('批量排课') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_session, but does not explicitly differentiate from other scheduling tools.

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 provides some usage context: it explains when to use auto_bind and force for conflict handling, and mentions the return format. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., when to use this vs. update_session), making usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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