Copies an existing bulletin's content and layout into a new announcement, automatically inserts the current date, and accepts quick edits such as title and pinned status.
【助教特殊功能：複製既有公告】複製過往學期或現有公告之內容與排版（對應公告清單『複製』按鈕），自動帶入當前日期並可快速微調。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topMost | No | 是否標示為重要置頂 HOT | |
| newTitle | Yes | 新公告標題 | |
| sourceBulletinId | Yes | 來源公告 ID（例如 19842） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that the current date is auto-filled and that the copy can be lightly adjusted, but it does not say whether the resulting bulletin is a draft or published, whether the source is untouched, or what permissions are required for this mutation.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the bracketed feature tag and then the core action, with no filler. The bracketed label is mildly noisy but still earns its place by framing this as a TA-only shortcut.
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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the what and the date auto-fill, but omits the outcome (what gets created, draft vs. live) and any permission or side-effect context. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 100%, so all three parameters (sourceBulletinId, newTitle, topMost) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as how newTitle relates to the copied title, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb + resource ('複製既有公告') and scopes it to past-semester or existing bulletins, tying it to a concrete UI affordance ('公告清單「複製」按鈕'). It implicitly separates itself from create_bulletin but never names that sibling, leaving a little inference to the agent.
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 phrase '複製過往學期或現有公告' signals the situation that calls for this tool, so usage is implied. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and never says to use create_bulletin instead when authoring from scratch, so the alternative is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.