edit_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the read-modify-write mechanism, states that only supplied fields are changed, and warns that grade_ids replaces the current grades. This gives the agent accurate expectations about side effects.

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?

Each line carries distinct information: purpose, permission, behavioral mechanism, staff exclusion, then a clean Args block. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant details are 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 5-parameter write tool with zero annotation coverage, the description covers prerequisites, update semantics, parameter semantics, and the alternative for staff. The presence of an output schema means the lack of return-value documentation is not a gap.

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 must explain every parameter, and it does: section_id is sourced from list_classes, name/room are marked optional with a format example, and grade_ids is explicitly 'new list ... replaces the current grades.' This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare types and null defaults.

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 opening sentence states a precise action and resource: 'Rename a class or change its room code / grades.' It enumerates exactly which attributes are editable, so an agent can immediately distinguish edit_class from sibling mutators like set_class_visibility or add_class_staff.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Requires PS_ENABLE_WRITES') and a when-not-to-use rule: 'Staff are not affected; use add_class_staff / remove_class_staff for those.' This is a clear decision rule that prevents the most likely misuse, without making the agent infer from the sibling list.

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