create_class_affiliation

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

The description only says 'add', which implies creation, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether it returns the created object, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are present but the description adds no additional context.

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 a single sentence of 6 words, which is too brief for a tool with 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema. It under-specifies the tool's behavior and lacks critical information, making it inefficient rather than concise.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns the new affiliation or a success indicator). It does not address this, nor does it clarify the role of class_year. The tool is simple but the description is incomplete.

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 description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain any of the three parameters. The agent must infer the meaning of class_year, constituent_id, and class_affiliation_type_id solely from their names, which is insufficient.

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 'Add a class affiliation to a constituent' uses a specific verb ('add') and clearly identifies the resource (class affiliation) and target (constituent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, update, or delete class affiliations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use list_class_affiliation_types first to get the type ID, or when not to use it (e.g., if the affiliation already exists). No context on prerequisites or post-conditions.

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