Create and schedule announcements for a specified NTHU eeclass course, including title, content, start/end dates, important/top-pinned flags, or draft saving.
在指定課程新增公告（支援設定標題、內文、公告起訖日期、標示為重要/置頂 HOT、存為草稿）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | No | 是否存為草稿 | |
| title | Yes | 公告標題 | |
| content | Yes | 公告內文 | |
| topMost | No | 是否標示為重要置頂 (HOT) | |
| courseId | Yes | 課程 ID | |
| period_end | No | 結束日期（YYYY-MM-DD） | |
| period_start | Yes | 開始日期（YYYY-MM-DD） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates fields that already appear in the schema. It never says whether creation requires a specific role, whether students get notified (a separate sibling send_bulletin_mail_notification hints this matters), whether a draft is invisible to students, or what the tool returns.
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 tight sentence with the verb and course scope front-loaded, followed by a compact field list. The parenthetical does duplicate schema information, but it costs little and remains scannable.
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?
This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source for permission requirements, side effects (notification, visibility window, draft behavior) and the shape of a success response. None of that is covered, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation.
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 every one of the seven parameters including draft, topMost and the period dates is already documented with types and formats (YYYY-MM-DD). The description's parenthetical simply mirrors those fields without adding constraints such as required-vs-optional behavior or validation rules, 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?
States a specific verb and resource (新增公告 in 指定課程) and enumerates the supported attributes, so the agent knows exactly what gets created. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as copy_bulletin or ai_compose_bulletin_announcement, which also produce bulletin content.
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?
There is no when-to-use clause, no prerequisites (e.g. teacher/owner role on the course), and no routing away from ai_compose_bulletin_announcement (drafting the text) or copy_bulletin (duplicating an existing one). The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.