upsert_feedback_sheet

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses upsert behavior (PUT vs create), target_id validity requirement, title visibility to parents, structured rows with required fields, and mastery phrasing constraints. Lacks info on rate limits or auth but these are less critical for this tool.

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?

Description is fairly long but well-structured: starts with a concise purpose, then explains batch context, followed by bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 7 parameters, batch logic, and output schema (defined as {ok, sheet_id}), the description is quite thorough. Covers workflow, constraints, and parameter details. Minor gaps: rows structure could specify that kp_id is optional, and no mention of error handling or limits.

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 description must compensate. It explains all 7 parameters: target_id (mapped from list_teach_targets), title (parent-visible), lesson_date (format), rows (required keys), sheet_id (update), batch_key and lesson_seq (continuation logic). Adds significant meaning beyond bare 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?

Description clearly states '建/改课后反馈单' (create/update after-class feedback sheet) and specifies the output '{ok, sheet_id}'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'list_feedback_sheets' and 'export_feedback_png' by focusing on upsert operation with batch logic.

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?

Provides detailed usage guidelines: explains batch concept (PRD-010 workflow), how to determine next lesson_seq using list_feedback_sheets, when to start a new batch, and warns against fabricating target_id. Although no explicit 'when not to use', the rich guidance compensates.

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