edit_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 the permission requirement, describes the replace-then-read-back behavior ('current values are read back from the class first and resent'), which reveals that omitted fields are preserved rather than cleared. It also clarifies that staff are unaffected, preventing misuses. This is thorough for a mutation tool.

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-structured and front-loaded: it opens with purpose and permission, then explains behavioral nuances, and ends with a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value—the permission note, the replace semantics, and the staff exclusion are all critical. The parameter documentation is necessary given the empty schema, and the overall length is justified.

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 five parameters, the replace-send behavior, permission requirements, and sibling interactions, the description covers all essential operational details. It explains when to use alternative tools, what each parameter does, and the underlying endpoint's behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 fully document parameters. The 'Args' section explains each parameter's meaning, optionality, and special behavior (e.g., grade_ids 'replaces the current grades' and room example 'Room 5'). This fully compensates for the absence of schema descriptions, leaving no ambiguity.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Rename a class or change its room code / grades.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating that staff are not affected and directing to add_class_staff / remove_class_staff for those operations. This provides a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from related mutation tools like add_class and set_class_visibility.

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 explicit usage guidance by noting that staff changes are out of scope and referencing alternative tools. It also explains the partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields change') and the permission requirement (PS_ENABLE_WRITES), which informs when the tool is appropriate. This is clear and actionable for selecting between tools.

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