move_student_to_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (PS_ENABLE_WRITES), the atomicity (global lock, single request), the preservation of other classes, and the optionality of from_section_id. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure covering safety and side effects.

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 longer than ideal but well-organized: purpose first, then safety, behavior, and args. Each section adds necessary detail, and the critical safety warning is prominent. Slight redundancy in the 'full class list replaced' vs 'other classes preserved' phrasing, but overall efficient.

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 write operation with parallelism hazard, the description covers prerequisites, concurrency constraints, behavioral nuances, and parameter sources. An output schema exists, so return format is handled separately. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter with purpose and provenance (e.g., 'from list_students', 'from list_classes'), and clarifies the optionality of from_section_id with behavioral consequences. This fully compensates for the lacking schema descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Switch a student from one class to another.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it does both halves of the switch in a single request and can add a class while preserving others. This makes the tool's unique role clear.

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?

Provides explicit guidance about when NOT to use it: 'Never call this tool or another class-staff/student-enrollment write in parallel.' It also explains the effect of omitting from_section_id, guiding how to use it for adding rather than moving. However, it does not explicitly contrast with add_class_students or remove_class_students, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over those alternatives.

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