IndividualClassesChangeTeacher

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

Annotations already establish the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects on schedules, permission requirements, or reversibility, but it transparently states the core state change.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the key object ('teacher') and scoping ('individual class') are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the basic intent and the schema supplies the required IDs, which is adequate for a simple mutation. It is incomplete regarding the optional classLearningLanguage parameter, whose enum values and role in changing a teacher are unexplained, and there is no guidance on side effects.

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%, so all three parameters have at least nominal descriptions and the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional meaning to classId, teacherId, or the cryptic classLearningLanguage enum, leaving the agent to rely on the weak schema text.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Change the teacher assigned to an individual class.' Mentioning 'individual' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling GroupClassesChangeTeacher, so an agent can select the right tool without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'individual class' gives clear context that this tool is for one-to-one class assignments rather than group classes. It does not explicitly name GroupClassesChangeTeacher or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls one step short of full usage guidance.

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