IndividualClassesCreate

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, so the basic safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context: it does not mention possible failure conditions, whether pupil/teacher must already exist, duplicate handling, or side effects beyond creating the class.

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 front-loaded sentence with minimal waste. The word 'new' is slightly redundant, and the brevity is more minimal than structured, but it is not padded or unfocused.

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?

With four fully documented parameters, an agent can construct a syntactically valid request. However, the description omits preconditions, response expectations, and whether the optional language parameter has a meaningful default, so the definition is usable but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with Russian descriptions for the name, pupil ID, and teacher ID, plus a fully expanded language enum. The description itself provides no additional parameter meaning, so the schema carries the full burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('individual class'), which distinguishes it from the IndividualClassesGet/Update/Delete/ChangeTeacher siblings. However, it is essentially a sentence-form paraphrase of the tool name and adds no semantic depth beyond what the name already conveys.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as GroupClassesCreate or IndividualClassesUpdate. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are documented, so an agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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