IndividualClassesUpdate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read mutation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as partial-update semantics, idempotency effects, permission requirements, or what happens when the class does not exist. It merely restates the mutation implied by the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and 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?

For a simple three-parameter update with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to identify and invoke the operation. However, it lacks important contextual details like update semantics (partial vs. full), the distinction from IndividualClassesChangeTeacher, and expected behavior when the target class does not exist.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already explains that classId is required, bodyName is the new individual class name, and bodyLessonTariffDurationId identifies the tariff that determines lesson duration. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing individual class.' It distinguishes from create, delete, and get operations on individual classes, but it does not differentiate from the sibling IndividualClassesChangeTeacher, which is also a kind of update. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention that teacher changes should go through IndividualClassesChangeTeacher, or that this tool is for updating name and lesson tariff duration. The usage context is entirely left to inference.

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