add_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the requirement for PS_ENABLE_WRITES and the critical side effect that new classes are hidden until set_class_visibility is called. It also implies that staff are not automatically assigned. These are meaningful behaviors beyond the simple 'create' action.

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 tight and well-ordered: a one-sentence purpose, a brief paragraph on hidden behavior and next steps, then a clean Args list. No filler or redundancy; the most important behavioral note is front-loaded.

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 create operation with 3 params and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, required permission, parameter semantics, and the hidden-class behavior. It even points to list_grades for valid IDs and suggests follow-up tools. No critical gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description's Args section is the sole documentation. It explains each parameter: school_id as School ID, name with an example, and grade_ids with a source (list_grades). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Create a new class (section) at a school.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like edit_class and set_class_visibility by explicitly noting that new classes are hidden until set_class_visibility is called, and that teacher assignment is done via add_class_staff. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 description gives clear workflow context: after creating a class, you must call set_class_visibility to make it visible and add_class_staff to assign teachers. This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for creation) versus those others. It doesn't explicitly say 'do not use this for editing' but the workflow guidance is strong.

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