mhlb_create_student

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the tool is 'UNVERIFIED' and derived from a compiled client, warning to inspect the dry-run preview. It also explains the confirm parameter's gating behavior, which is critical for safe use.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main action and prerequisite are front-loaded; the critical warning is separate and prominent. Every sentence 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 create operation with a nested object and confirmation flag, the description covers the workflow, the preview mechanism, and the verification risk. It doesn't detail the success output, but given the dry-run emphasis and the schema, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that the 'student' object should come from the form tool and that 'confirm' triggers the actual write after a preview, enriching 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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a student') with scope ('to the account'), clearly distinguishing it from update/delete/retrieve siblings. The phrasing leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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?

Explicitly requires calling mhlb_new_student_form first and sending the returned model with edits, giving a clear prerequisite. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update/delete, the verb 'Add' and the workflow make the usage context unambiguous.

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