创建课节

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context such as the required parameters, constraints (e.g., className 1-90 characters, seatNum 0-50 default 6), and the return value (class ID). It does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior, but given annotation coverage, the additional details are reasonable.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a parameter list and return value. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the empty schema and absence of an output schema, the description provides the essential information: purpose, all parameters, and return value. However, it lacks guidance on error handling, permissions, or when to use alternative tools, which would make it fully complete. Annotations cover safety traits, so the 4 reflects the strong parameter/return coverage but missing usage context.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter documentation. It lists all 7 parameters with names, required flags, constraints, and default values (e.g., seatNum default 6). This far exceeds the baseline for 0-param schemas, providing comprehensive semantics.

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 tool's function: '在课程下创建课节（单课）' which means 'Create a course session (single lesson) under a course.' This uses a specific verb (创建/create) and a specific resource (课节/course session), and differentiates from siblings like edit_course_class or delete_course_class by explicitly indicating creation.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related operations like editing or deleting course sessions, nor does it specify prerequisites or conflict scenarios. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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