move_student_to_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that this is a write operation, requires PS_ENABLE_WRITES, replaces the student's full class list under a global lock, preserves other classes, and handles both halves of the switch atomically. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before calling.

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 well-organized: purpose, prerequisite, safety warning, operational behavior, then parameter semantics. The longer safety block is warranted because the concurrency constraint is critical. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, this is complete: it explains the write requirement, the locking behavior, the exact effect on existing enrollments, and how to achieve add-vs-move semantics. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 compensate, and it does. Every parameter is given real meaning: school_id scopes the classes, student_id is sourced from list_students, to_section_id comes from list_classes, and from_section_id is optional with a clear effect. This is significantly more useful than the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Switch a student from one class to another.' It further clarifies scope by explaining that both halves of the switch happen in a single request and that other classes are preserved, which distinguishes it from sibling add/remove enrollment tools. The purpose is unmistakable even without opening the schema.

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 behavioral guidance: never run in parallel with other enrollment writes, and omit from_section_id to add rather than move. It states the PS_ENABLE_WRITES prerequisite and explains when the optional parameter changes the operation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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