add_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that classes are created hidden, which is a significant side effect, and notes the PS_ENABLE_WRITES requirement. While it does not cover all possible side effects (e.g., failure modes), it provides meaningful, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to know before invocation.

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 compact and well-organized. The key behavioral point (hidden status) is stated upfront, followed by essential follow-up actions, and then a clean bulleted argument list. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the essential purpose, the hidden-creation behavior, the permission requirement, and next steps. An output schema exists (per context signals) which presumably documents return values. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional inference, though it could mention error handling or default values for omitted parameters (e.g., nothing about what happens if grade_ids is empty). Overall, it is robust.

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 for all three parameters. It briefly describes each parameter (school_id, name with an example, grade_ids with source list_grades). This adds value beyond the bare schema, although school_id could be more explicit about its source, and grade_ids could mention that multiple IDs are allowed in the array. Still, it sufficiently disambiguates the parameters.

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?

States a clear verb (create) and resource (class/section) at a school, with specific scope. It also differentiates from related siblings by explaining that new classes are hidden and need further steps (set_class_visibility, add_class_staff). An agent can easily identify this is for creating a brand-new class, not editing or managing existing ones.

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 implies when to use this tool (when creating a new class) and gives essential follow-up actions (calling set_class_visibility and add_class_staff). It does not explicitly name alternatives like edit_class or set_class_visibility as 'use instead,' but the workflow context is clear enough for correct selection among siblings.

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