classroom_create_material

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and openWorldHint=true, so the baseline behavioral profile is covered. The description adds the resource type and optional parameters, but it does not disclose additional side effects such as notifications or scheduling behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 one tightly front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object appear first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the complexity of a seven-parameter creation tool.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and little parameter documentation, a single sentence is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Missing details include required courseId/title expectations, state defaults or scheduling effects, and what happens after creation. The description leaves significant room for guesswork.

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 only 14%, so the description carries a heavy burden. It mentions attachments and topic, but leaves five parameters—including required courseId and title, plus state, description, and scheduledTime—without semantic explanation. This is insufficient compensation for the sparse 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('study material post'), and notes the optional attachments and topic scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like classroom_create_assignment and classroom_post_announcement by the 'material' resource type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating an assignment, announcement, or topic. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from sibling names.

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