classroom_patch_material

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description confirms a write operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of partial updates via updateMask, effects on published/draft state, scheduling behavior, or what the response contains.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, this description is far too sparse. It fails to mention the critical updateMask mechanism, the allowed fields, the required courseId/id, or the behavior of optional fields. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct request from this description alone.

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 25%, and the description does not compensate by listing the updatable fields or explaining the updateMask requirement. The generic phrase 'Update fields' adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer that fields like title, description, topicId, scheduledTime, and state are involved.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Update') and the resource ('an existing material post'), making it distinct from create/list material tools. It is not as precise as naming the resource 'material' or differentiating from patch_assignment/patch_topic, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 classroom_patch_assignment, classroom_patch_topic, or classroom_patch_announcement. The description states only what the tool does, not the conditions or exclusions that would help an agent select it correctly.

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