Creates a Google Classroom study material post with a title, optional description, topic, attachments, draft or published state, and scheduled publication.
Create a study material post with optional attachments and topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | DRAFT | |
| title | Yes | ||
| topicId | No | ||
| courseId | Yes | ||
| attachments | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| scheduledTime | No | RFC 3339 timestamp for scheduled publication |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0-beta.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/network profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say materials are posted into a course visible to students, doesn't mention the PUBLISHED vs DRAFT visibility consequence, and doesn't note permission requirements or the 20-attachment cap.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no padding. It is only slightly short of ideal because brevity here comes at the cost of necessary detail elsewhere.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with 14% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. It leaves unclear how state, scheduledTime, and attachment shareMode interact, and gives no picture of what the call returns or what permissions are needed.
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 14%, so the description must compensate, and it barely does — it names attachments and topic but says nothing about state, scheduledTime, description, or the shareMode behavior for driveFile attachments. Two of seven parameters get implicit mention at best.
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?
Specific verb plus resource: 'Create a study material post', with a note that attachments and topic are optional. That is clear enough to distinguish it from classroom_create_assignment and classroom_create_topic, though it never names those siblings or states the distinction explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent choosing between creating a material, an assignment, or an announcement gets no help from the text beyond the noun 'material'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.