set_class_visibility

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PS_ENABLE_WRITES prerequisite, explains that hidden classes are invisible to all user roles, and notes that the change takes effect on a date (defaulting to today). This covers key behaviors. It doesn't mention what happens to existing posts or whether the action is reversible, but for a visibility toggle the given details are substantial.

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-structured: it leads with the purpose and requirement, then the critical usage context, then a neatly formatted Args list. Every sentence contributes something meaningful—no fluff or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the purpose, workflow, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and effects. It does not address error handling or invalid ID scenarios, but these are typically less critical for a toggle operation and are partially inferable from the schema. Overall it's quite complete.

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 explain all parameters, and it does so thoroughly: each arg is given a clear meaning, including that section_ids come from list_classes, the boolean semantics of visible, and the date format plus default behavior. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 action (show/hide), the resource (classes), and the audience (staff, parents, students). It is unambiguously distinct from read-only siblings like list_classes and from creation tools like add_class by mentioning the write permission requirement and the hidden-by-default behavior.

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 specific context: newly created classes start hidden, so add_class needs this before anyone can see or post. This implies when to use it (right after creation) and gives the workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., edit_class) or state when not to use it, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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