GroupClassesChangeTeacher

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a mutating but non-destructive operation. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the action already implied by the tool name and annotations—no mention of side effects, overwriting behavior, permissions, or validation.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter mutation, though it sacrifices useful usage context.

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 low-complexity tool with two obvious integer parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema and no note about expected responses, permissions, or where to obtain valid IDs, it leaves some context gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 100%, though the schema descriptions are merely 'integer (required)' and carry little semantic weight. The description implicitly maps classId to the group class and teacherId to the new teacher, but it does not add any explicit parameter-level guidance beyond that.

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 states a specific action ('Change') and a specific resource ('the teacher assigned to a group class'), clearly conveying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from IndividualClassesChangeTeacher by explicitly mentioning group classes, though it does not differentiate itself from the broader GroupClassesUpdate tool.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as GroupClassesUpdate or IndividualClassesChangeTeacher. The phrase 'group class' implies its scope, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or context for choosing it.

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