添加活动成员

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return value ('成功返回操作结果') but does not mention idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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-organized, listing parameters and return value in a clear, scannable format. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple add-student operation, the description covers the core action and parameters, but lacks details on required vs. optional parameters, error conditions, and the exact structure of the returned result. The absence of an output schema increases the need for such information, making this only minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 properties), so the description is the only source of parameter information. It clearly defines courseId, activityId, and studentUids/studentUid, including that the latter accepts a list or a single UID. This fully compensates for the absent schema.

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 explicitly states the tool adds students to an LMS activity ('向LMS活动添加学生'), using a specific verb and resource. It also lists the key parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like classin_delete_activity_student or classin_add_course_student.

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 purpose makes the primary use case clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., classin_add_course_student vs. classin_add_activity_student) or any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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