update_class_affiliation

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

The description states 'Update' which is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as specific side effects or scope of changes.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, with a clear subject-verb-object structure. While it sacrifices detail, it is not wasteful and is easily parsed.

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?

For a simple update tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to define what a class affiliation is, which fields can be updated (only class_year inferred), and any constraints. Annotations provide some behavioral context but the description lacks substantive information.

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 two parameters (id, class_year) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain the meaning or role of any parameter, leaving the agent without necessary context to correctly populate them.

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 'Update a class affiliation record' clearly specifies the action (update) and the resource (class affiliation record). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_class_affiliation and delete_class_affiliation by its verb.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use, leaving the agent without decision support.

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